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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Attacks on Machine-Text Detectors Retain Stylistic Fingerprints
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.
-
Small Is Enough: Per-User Style Rewriting of AI-Edited Text via LoRA Adapters
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.
-
Stylometry recognizes human and LLM-generated texts in short samples
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 ...
-
GPT Editors, Not Authors: The Stylistic Footprint of LLMs in Academic Preprints
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.
-
AI-Generated Content in Cross-Domain Applications: Research Trends, Challenges and Propositions
A cross-domain vision paper that surveys AI-generated content and proposes research directions, without introducing new empirical results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.