Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2410.19230 v2 pith:VF5AXU2A submitted 2024-10-25 cs.LG cs.CLcs.CR

Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectors

classification cs.LG cs.CLcs.CR
keywords detectorsstrategytextdropmodelmodelsproxy-attackattacks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

    cs.CL 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5

    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.

  2. ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.