Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.13408 v2 pith:AFACHWBZ submitted 2023-03-23 cs.CL cs.CRcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.CRcs.LG
keywords textai-generateddetectionparaphrasedefensedetectorsdippergenerations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rise in malicious usage of large language models, such as fake content creation and academic plagiarism, has motivated the development of approaches that identify AI-generated text, including those based on watermarking or outlier detection. However, the robustness of these detection algorithms to paraphrases of AI-generated text remains unclear. To stress test these detectors, we build a 11B parameter paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Using DIPPER to paraphrase text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking, GPTZero, DetectGPT, and OpenAI's text classifier. For example, DIPPER drops detection accuracy of DetectGPT from 70.3% to 4.6% (at a constant false positive rate of 1%), without appreciably modifying the input semantics. To increase the robustness of AI-generated text detection to paraphrase attacks, we introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider. Given a candidate text, our algorithm searches a database of sequences previously generated by the API, looking for sequences that match the candidate text within a certain threshold. We empirically verify our defense using a database of 15M generations from a fine-tuned T5-XXL model and find that it can detect 80% to 97% of paraphrased generations across different settings while only classifying 1% of human-written sequences as AI-generated. We open-source our models, code and data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 89 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Attacks on Machine-Text Detectors Retain Stylistic Fingerprints

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A style-aware paraphrasing attack evades all nine tested AI-text detectors at the single-document level, but multi-document analysis makes the attack detectable again.

  2. Small Is Enough: Per-User Style Rewriting of AI-Edited Text via LoRA Adapters

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LoRA-adapted 0.5B-7B language models all reach the same automatic rewriting score (0.69), indicating model size does not change measured quality for this single-user style-rewriting task.

  3. Stylometry recognizes human and LLM-generated texts in short samples

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Stylometric features and tree-based classifiers separate human-written Wikipedia summaries from LLM-generated texts with high cross-validated accuracy on a new seven-class benchmark, though performance drops on other ...

  4. GPT Editors, Not Authors: The Stylistic Footprint of LLMs in Academic Preprints

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Across 2,408 arXiv preprints, LLM-typical word usage does not cluster in any section, indicating that AI assistance, when used, is uniform rather than limited to specific parts of a paper.

  5. AI-Generated Content in Cross-Domain Applications: Research Trends, Challenges and Propositions

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A cross-domain vision paper that surveys AI-generated content and proposes research directions, without introducing new empirical results.

Pith tools