'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09770v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:06:08 GMT
• Title: 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews
• Authors: Sandeep Kumar, Mohit Sahu, Vardhan Gacche, Tirthankar Ghosal, Asif Ekbal,
• Abstract summary: There is a growing concern that AI-generated texts could compromise scientific publishing, including peer-review. We introduce the Term Frequency (TF) model, which posits that AI often repeats tokens, and the Review Regeneration (RR) model, which is based on the idea that ChatGPT generates similar outputs upon re-prompting. Our findings suggest both our proposed methods perform better than the other AI text detectors.
• Score: 20.030884734361358
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The integrity of the peer-review process is vital for maintaining scientific rigor and trust within the academic community. With the steady increase in the usage of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in academic writing, there is a growing concern that AI-generated texts could compromise scientific publishing, including peer-reviews. Previous works have focused on generic AI-generated text detection or have presented an approach for estimating the fraction of peer-reviews that can be AI-generated. Our focus here is to solve a real-world problem by assisting the editor or chair in determining whether a review is written by ChatGPT or not. To address this, we introduce the Term Frequency (TF) model, which posits that AI often repeats tokens, and the Review Regeneration (RR) model, which is based on the idea that ChatGPT generates similar outputs upon re-prompting. We stress test these detectors against token attack and paraphrasing. Finally, we propose an effective defensive strategy to reduce the effect of paraphrasing on our models. Our findings suggest both our proposed methods perform better than the other AI text detectors. Our RR model is more robust, although our TF model performs better than the RR model without any attacks. We make our code, dataset, and model public.

Related papers

• Are AI-Generated Text Detectors Robust to Adversarial Perturbations? [9.001160538237372]
  Current detectors for AI-generated text (AIGT) lack robustness against adversarial perturbations. This paper investigates the robustness of existing AIGT detection methods and introduces a novel detector, the Siamese Calibrated Reconstruction Network (SCRN) The SCRN employs a reconstruction network to add and remove noise from text, extracting a semantic representation that is robust to local perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T10:21:48Z)
• Forging the Forger: An Attempt to Improve Authorship Verification via Data Augmentation [52.72682366640554]
  Authorship Verification (AV) is a text classification task concerned with inferring whether a candidate text has been written by one specific author or by someone else. It has been shown that many AV systems are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where a malicious author actively tries to fool the classifier by either concealing their writing style, or by imitating the style of another author.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T16:36:26Z)
• DetectGPT-SC: Improving Detection of Text Generated by Large Language Models through Self-Consistency with Masked Predictions [13.077729125193434]
  Existing detectors are built on the assumption that there is a distribution gap between human-generated and AI-generated texts. We find that large language models such as ChatGPT exhibit strong self-consistency in text generation and continuation. We propose a new method for AI-generated texts detection based on self-consistency with masked predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T01:23:10Z)
• UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback [99.4633351133207]
  We present textscUltraFeedback, a large-scale, high-quality, and diversified AI feedback dataset. Our work validates the effectiveness of scaled AI feedback data in constructing strong open-source chat language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T17:40:01Z)
• A LLM Assisted Exploitation of AI-Guardian [57.572998144258705]
  We evaluate the robustness of AI-Guardian, a recent defense to adversarial examples published at IEEE S&P 2023. We write none of the code to attack this model, and instead prompt GPT-4 to implement all attack algorithms following our instructions and guidance. This process was surprisingly effective and efficient, with the language model at times producing code from ambiguous instructions faster than the author of this paper could have done.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:33:25Z)
• RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning [69.5883095262619]
  RADAR is based on adversarial training of a paraphraser and a detector. The paraphraser's goal is to generate realistic content to evade AI-text detection. RADAR uses the feedback from the detector to update the paraphraser, and vice versa.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T21:13:27Z)
• Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense [56.077252790310176]
  We present a 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. We introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:29:27Z)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [54.670136179857344]
  Unregulated use of LLMs can potentially lead to malicious consequences such as plagiarism, generating fake news, spamming, etc. Recent works attempt to tackle this problem either using certain model signatures present in the generated text outputs or by applying watermarking techniques. In this paper, we show that these detectors are not reliable in practical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)
• ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text [2.0378492681344493]
  We study whether a machine learning model can be effectively trained to accurately distinguish between original human and seemingly human (that is, ChatGPT-generated) text. We employ an explainable artificial intelligence framework to gain insight into the reasoning behind the model trained to differentiate between ChatGPT-generated and human-generated text. Our study focuses on short online reviews, conducting two experiments comparing human-generated and ChatGPT-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T08:06:08Z)
• How would Stance Detection Techniques Evolve after the Launch of ChatGPT? [5.756359016880821]
  A new pre-trained language model chatGPT was launched on Nov 30, 2022. ChatGPT can achieve SOTA or similar performance for commonly used datasets including SemEval-2016 and P-Stance. ChatGPT has the potential to be the best AI model for stance detection tasks in NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-30T05:03:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.