Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content Detectors
Ying Zhou, Ben He, Le Sun
Abstract
With the launch of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have attracted global attention. In the realm of article writing, LLMs have witnessed extensive utilization, giving rise to concerns related to intellectual property protection, personal privacy, and academic integrity. In response, AI-text detection has emerged to distinguish between human and machine-generated content. However, recent research indicates that these detection systems often lack robustness and struggle to effectively differentiate perturbed texts. Currently, there is a lack of systematic evaluations regarding detection performance in real-world applications, and a comprehensive examination of perturbation techniques and detector robustness is also absent. To bridge this gap, our work simulates realworld scenarios in both informal and professional writing, exploring the out-of-the-box performance of current detectors. Additionally, we have constructed 12 black-box text perturbation methods to assess the robustness of current detection models across various perturbation granularities. Furthermore, through adversarial learning experiments, we investigate the impact of perturbation data augmentation on the robustness of AI-text detectors. We have released our code and data at https://github.com/zhouy ing20/ai-text-detector-evaluation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 8df77d5d-d461-4e5e-8a98-4f2305107a51Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on13
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and ComprehensionMike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad et al.ACL 2020 · 1,224 citations
- DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability CurvatureEric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning et al.ICML 2023 · 988 citations
- Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defenseKalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 657 citations
Related papers
- AI Wrote My Paper and All I Got was This False Negative:* Measuring the Efficacy of Commercial AI Text DetectorsSeth Layton, Bernardo B. P. Medeiros, Kevin R. B. Butler, Patrick TraynorS&P 2026 · 3 citations
- Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay DetectionXinlin Peng, Ying Zhou, Ben He, Le Sun et al.EMNLP 2023 · 9 citations
- MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text DetectionXinlei He, Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes et al.CCS 2024 · 30 citations
- DeTeCtive: Detecting AI-generated Text via Multi-Level Contrastive LearningXun Guo, Yongxin He, Shan Zhang, Ting Zhang et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 100 citations
- DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT WordsmithKavita Kumari, Alessandro Pegoraro, Hossein Fereidooni, Ahmad-Reza SadeghiNDSS 2024
