mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors

arXiv 2605.19516 ↗First posted 19 May 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 2

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

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  4. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
  5. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  6. 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
  7. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
  8. 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
  9. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  10. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  11. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  12. 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 285
15 more
  1. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
  2. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
  3. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
  4. 2024LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected?cited by 47
  5. 2024Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifiercited by 32
  6. 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
  7. 2025What's In My Human Feedback? Learning Interpretable Descriptions of Preference Datacited by 22
  8. 2025DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Textcited by 20
  9. 2024SilverSpeak: Evading AI-Generated Text Detectors using Homoglyphscited by 11
  10. 2026GPTZero: Robust Detection of LLM-Generated Textscited by 10
  11. 2025AuthorMist: Evading AI Text Detectors with Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
  12. 2025TH-Bench: Evaluating Evading Attacks via Humanizing AI Text on Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 8
  13. 2026StealthRL: Reinforcement Learning Paraphrase Attacks for Multi-Detector Evasion of AI-Text Detectorscited by 4
  14. 2025PADBen: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating AI Text Detectors Against Paraphrase Attackscited by 3
  15. 2026MASH: Evading Black-Box AI-Generated Text Detectors via Style Humanizationcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.