Hitting a Moving Target: Test-Time Adaptation for AI Text Detection under Continual Distribution Shift
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deployed approaches for AI text detection often rely on training-time access to labeled datasets of both human-written and AI-generated text. This approach is vulnerable to three types of distribution shifts that occur continually post-deployment, and for which labeled data is often unavailable: adversarial humanization, new LLMs being released, and temporal drift in human writing. Simultaneously, existing approaches do not leverage a key signal of LLM usage: inference-time homogeneity. We propose a test-time adaptation (TTA) approach, using semi-supervised learning, that adapts to distribution shifts by leveraging homogeneity among unlabeled samples observed at inference time. Empirically, we find that state-of-the-art supervised detectors systematically fail when they encounter distribution shifts in AI-generated and human writing, both adversarial and natural, while test-time adaptation with semi-supervised learning is largely robust; e.g., the commercial model Pangram detects just 24.1% of our adversarial AI-generated text, compared to 90.5% for our test-time approach. We establish that test-time adaptation is a promising framework for AI text detection in the wild. We publicly release our code (which includes code for model training, evaluation, and plots) at https://github.com/kkr36/llm_detection.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 84 of its 111 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.
Builds on
84 of 111 references.
References · 84
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,384
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2022Continual Test-Time Domain Adaptationcited by 520
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
- 2021MEMO: Test Time Robustness via Adaptation and Augmentationcited by 376
38 more
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
- 2023A Comprehensive Survey on Test-Time Adaptation under Distribution Shiftscited by 353
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 318
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2017Positive-Unlabeled Learning with Non-Negative Risk Estimatorcited by 217
- 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
- 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 190
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
- 2023Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel contentcited by 165
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
- 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
- 2022NOTE: Robust Continual Test-time Adaptation Against Temporal Correlationcited by 150
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
- 2024Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Paperscited by 112
- 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
- 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
- 2022Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawedcited by 104
- 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 101
- 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 98
- 2023Ghostbuster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Modelscited by 90
- 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 82
- 2023OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examplescited by 80
- 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
- 2016Mixture Proportion Estimation via Kernel Embedding of Distributionscited by 67
- 2023Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 59
- 2025Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversightcited by 53
- 2021Mixture Proportion Estimation and PU Learning: A Modern Approachcited by 52
- 2024DeTeCtive: Detecting AI-generated Text via Multi-Level Contrastive Learningcited by 52
- 2025The Widespread Adoption of Large Language Model-Assisted Writing Across Societycited by 50
- 2024M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 43
- 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 42
- 2024Few-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text using Style Representationscited by 40
- 2025People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated textcited by 39
- 2023HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpuscited by 33
- 2024Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifiercited by 32
50 most cited of 84 All 84 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.