mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agents Can Use Base Models to Evade AI Detection

arXiv 2609.31876 ↗First posted 25 Sep 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

We show that coding agents equipped with a base language model can successfully assemble responses from its samples to evade detection. Base models have been shown to evade commercial detectors, however, prior "humanization" techniques rely on using these models to paraphrase AI outputs over several iterations, which invariably results in semantic drift. In contrast, equipping coding agents to directly orchestrate the writing process by stitching text samples from a base model allows it to produce outputs that are coherent, task-specific and generally high quality. We find that Claude Opus 5 operating in a Claude Code harness effectively orchestrates a local 32B parameter OLMo-2 base LM and sacrifices little task accuracy across benchmarks spanning creative writing, factual grounding, health QA and instruction following, while using up to 90% base LM tokens. Responses constructed in this manner reduce the effectiveness of both post-hoc detectors (Pangram v4 detection rate drops from 77% to 24%) and soft watermarking applied a priori to the agent's generations (down to a simulated 10% detection at low FPR). While effective, this evasion requires a significantly larger number of input and output tokens from the agent, increasing the dollar cost per query up to 30x at API-pricing. Overall, this work demonstrates the effectiveness of a new class of adversarial attacks against AI text detection, and urges post-hoc detection providers to include outputs of base models in their training.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 29 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.

Builds on

29 of 41 references.

References · 29

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  2. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  3. 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,228
  4. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  5. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
  6. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  7. 2025HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Healthcited by 429
  8. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  9. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 263
  10. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  11. 2023On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Modelscited by 189
  12. 2025LitBench: A Benchmark and Dataset for Reliable Evaluation of Creative Writingcited by 42
17 more
  1. 2025People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated textcited by 40
  2. 2025The Shrinking Landscape of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Large Language Modelscited by 29
  3. 2024Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attackcited by 27
  4. 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
  5. 2025AI-Slop to AI-Polish? Aligning Language Models through Edit-Based Writing Rewards and Test-time Computationcited by 25
  6. 2025How to Train Your Advisor: Steering Black-Box LLMs with Advisor Modelscited by 24
  7. 2025DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Textcited by 20
  8. 2025The FACTS Leaderboard: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Model Factualitycited by 17
  9. 2025AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosedcited by 10
  10. 2026PRO-LONG: Programmatic Memory Enables Long-Horizon Reasoningcited by 10
  11. 2025Frankentext: Stitching random text fragments into long-form narrativescited by 8
  12. 2025Whose story is it? Personalizing story generation by inferring author stylescited by 6
  13. 2026Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceablecited by 6
  14. 2026LLM-Generated or Human-Written? Comparing Review and Non-Review Papers on ArXivcited by 3
  15. 2026Pangram 4 Technical Reportcited by 3
  16. 2026Base Models Look Human To AI Detectorscited by 2
  17. 2026Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for bookscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025From Reproduction to Replication: Evaluating Research Agents with Progressive Code Masking
  2. 2026Harness or Model? Isolating the Harness Effect in Agentic Coding with a Contamination-Controlled Private Suite
  3. 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models
  4. 2026Identical Runs, Different Results: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on Open-Weight Models
  5. 2026The Empire, Long Divided, Must Unite: Architectural Convergence in Three LLM Agent Harnesses
  6. 2026Do Context Files Help Coding Agents? A Two-Agent Ablation Study on Real Repositories
  7. 2026An Experimental Design Approach to Evaluating Agentic AI's Autonomous Model Discovery
  8. 2026Terminus-4B: Can a Smaller Model Replace Frontier LLMs at Agentic Execution Tasks?