How Sampling Affects the Detectability of Machine-written texts: A Comprehensive Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) are ever more common and often indistinguishable from human-written content, research on automatic text detection has attracted growing attention. Many recent detectors report near-perfect accuracy, often boasting AUROC scores above 99%. However, these claims typically assume fixed generation settings, leaving open the question of how robust such systems are to changes in decoding strategies. In this work, we systematically examine how sampling-based decoding impacts detectability, with a focus on how subtle variations in a model's (sub)word-level distribution affect detection performance. We find that even minor adjustments to decoding parameters - such as temperature, top-p, or nucleus sampling - can severely impair detector accuracy, with AUROC dropping from near-perfect levels to 1% in some settings. Our findings expose critical blind spots in current detection methods and emphasize the need for more comprehensive evaluation protocols. To facilitate future research, we release a large-scale dataset encompassing 37 decoding configurations, along with our code and evaluation framework https://github.com/BaggerOfWords/Sampling-and-Detection
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2025.
Builds on
46 of 63 references.
References · 46
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
- 2019CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generationcited by 762
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 263
34 more
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
- 2019Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 170
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 132
- 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 129
- 2023M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 121
- 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
- 2020Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generationcited by 96
- 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 85
- 2021Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexitycited by 78
- 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 59
- 2024Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewritingcited by 52
- 2023It's MBR All the Way Down: Modern Generation Techniques Through the Lens of Minimum Bayes Riskcited by 51
- 2023Large Language Models can be Guided to Evade AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 44
- 2023Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMscited by 40
- 2021PPL-MCTS: Constrained Textual Generation Through Discriminator-Guided MCTS Decodingcited by 33
- 2023On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writingcited by 27
- 2023From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Contentcited by 26
- 2024Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attackscited by 26
- 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
- 2024What Does the Bot Say? Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Social Media Bot Detectioncited by 25
- 2024LLM-DetectAIve: a Tool for Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 25
- 2020Sparse Text Generationcited by 24
- 2023How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Promptscited by 23
- 2024Authorship Obfuscation in Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 19
- 2022A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publicationscited by 18
- 2023On the Efficacy of Sampling Adapterscited by 17
- 2024Glimpse: Enabling White-Box Methods to Use Proprietary Models for Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 14
- 2024Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Textscited by 10
- 2023How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 8
- 2025GenAI Content Detection Task 3: Cross-Domain Machine-Generated Text Detection Challengecited by 7
- 2023Efficient Black-Box Adversarial Attacks on Neural Text Detectorscited by 3
- 2024MOSAIC: Multiple Observers Spotting AI Contentcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2025On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?cited by 3
- 2026The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choicescited by 3
- 2026The Role of Prompt Language and Translation-Theory-Driven Prompts in Large Language Models: A Case Study on Spanish-Chinese Journalistic Translationcited by 0
- 2026How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviewscited by 0
- 2026How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviews23 Sep 2026
- 2026The Role of Prompt Language and Translation-Theory-Driven Prompts in Large Language Models: A Case Study on Spanish-Chinese Journalistic Translation3 Jul 2026
- 2026The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choices19 Mar 2026
- 2025On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?23 Oct 2025