REVIEW 2 cited by
Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectors
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
Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectors
read the original abstract
The advent of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the field of text generation, producing outputs that closely mimic human-like writing. Although academic and industrial institutions have developed detectors to prevent the malicious usage of LLM-generated texts, other research has doubt about the robustness of these systems. To stress test these detectors, we introduce a proxy-attack strategy that effortlessly compromises LLMs, causing them to produce outputs that align with human-written text and mislead detection systems. Our method attacks the source model by leveraging a reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuned humanized small language model (SLM) in the decoding phase. Through an in-depth analysis, we demonstrate that our attack strategy is capable of generating responses that are indistinguishable to detectors, preventing them from differentiating between machine-generated and human-written text. We conduct systematic evaluations on extensive datasets using proxy-attacked open-source models, including Llama2-13B, Llama3-70B, and Mixtral-8*7B in both white- and black-box settings. Our findings show that the proxy-attack strategy effectively deceives the leading detectors, resulting in an average AUROC drop of 70.4% across multiple datasets, with a maximum drop of 90.3% on a single dataset. Furthermore, in cross-discipline scenarios, our strategy also bypasses these detectors, leading to a significant relative decrease of up to 90.9%, while in cross-language scenario, the drop reaches 91.3%. Despite our proxy-attack strategy successfully bypassing the detectors with such significant relative drops, we find that the generation quality of the attacked models remains preserved, even within a modest utility budget, when compared to the text produced by the original, unattacked source model.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable
State-of-the-art AI detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished peer reviews as fully AI-generated, rendering polishing-only policies currently unenforceable.
-
ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation
A matched four-regime benchmark shows AI-text detectors catch direct LLM output but lose most of their recall on human text rewritten by an LLM.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.