Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As AI-generated text enters the real-world at scale, institutions increasingly use commercial AI-text detectors, especially in education and academic-integrity workflows. We report a surprising empirical finding about such systems: when evaluated by GPTZero and Pangram, generated text from base models is often judged overwhelmingly human, whereas text generated by their instruction-tuned counterparts is not. Building on this observation, we propose Humanization by Iterative Paraphrasing (HIP), a detector-agnostic pipeline that minimally fine-tunes a base model into a paraphraser and applies it iteratively. Compared with the baselines we test, HIP yields a stronger trade-off between semantic preservation and detector evasion on commercial detectors. Across Llama-3 and Qwen-3 families, spanning model sizes from 0.6B to 70B, HIP consistently improves detector human-likeness. Our findings suggest that current detectors are tracking artifacts of instruction tuning and local context more than any invariant notion of machine-generated text. This, in turn, calls for detector designs that model these factors more explicitly.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.
Builds on
27 of 33 references.
References · 27
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
- 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 285
15 more
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
- 2024LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected?cited by 47
- 2024Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifiercited by 32
- 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
- 2025What's In My Human Feedback? Learning Interpretable Descriptions of Preference Datacited by 22
- 2025DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Textcited by 20
- 2024SilverSpeak: Evading AI-Generated Text Detectors using Homoglyphscited by 11
- 2026GPTZero: Robust Detection of LLM-Generated Textscited by 10
- 2025AuthorMist: Evading AI Text Detectors with Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
- 2025TH-Bench: Evaluating Evading Attacks via Humanizing AI Text on Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 8
- 2026StealthRL: Reinforcement Learning Paraphrase Attacks for Multi-Detector Evasion of AI-Text Detectorscited by 4
- 2025PADBen: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating AI Text Detectors Against Paraphrase Attackscited by 3
- 2026MASH: Evading Black-Box AI-Generated Text Detectors via Style Humanizationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
- 2026On the Indistinguishability of Human v/s AI Generated Textcited by 0
- 2026Agents Can Use Base Models to Evade AI Detectioncited by 0
- 2026Agents Can Use Base Models to Evade AI Detection25 Sep 2026
- 2026On the Indistinguishability of Human v/s AI Generated Text27 Aug 2026