TempTest: Local Normalization Distortion and the Detection of Machine-generated Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20421v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:56:59 GMT
• Title: TempTest: Local Normalization Distortion and the Detection of Machine-generated Text
• Authors: Tom Kempton, Stuart Burrell, Connor Cheverall,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a method for detecting machine-generated text that is entirely of the generating language model.<n>This is achieved by targeting a defect in the way that decoding strategies, such as temperature or top-k sampling, normalize conditional probability measures.<n>We evaluate our detector in the white and black box settings across various language models, datasets, and passage lengths.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing methods for the zero-shot detection of machine-generated text are dominated by three statistical quantities: log-likelihood, log-rank, and entropy. As language models mimic the distribution of human text ever closer, this will limit our ability to build effective detection algorithms. To combat this, we introduce a method for detecting machine-generated text that is entirely agnostic of the generating language model. This is achieved by targeting a defect in the way that decoding strategies, such as temperature or top-k sampling, normalize conditional probability measures. This method can be rigorously theoretically justified, is easily explainable, and is conceptually distinct from existing methods for detecting machine-generated text. We evaluate our detector in the white and black box settings across various language models, datasets, and passage lengths. We also study the effect of paraphrasing attacks on our detector and the extent to which it is biased against non-native speakers. In each of these settings, the performance of our test is at least comparable to that of other state-of-the-art text detectors, and in some cases, we strongly outperform these baselines.

Related papers

• ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability [62.285407189502216]
  Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions.<n>We introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process.<n>We show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T01:15:07Z)
• Adversarial Attacks on AI-Generated Text Detection Models: A Token Probability-Based Approach Using Embeddings [14.150011713654331]
  This work proposes a novel textual adversarial attack on the detection models such as Fast-DetectGPT.<n>The method employs embedding models for data perturbation, aiming at reconstructing the AI generated texts to reduce the likelihood of detection of the true origin of the texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:06:27Z)
• Detecting Machine-Generated Long-Form Content with Latent-Space Variables [54.07946647012579]
  Existing zero-shot detectors primarily focus on token-level distributions, which are vulnerable to real-world domain shifts. We propose a more robust method that incorporates abstract elements, such as event transitions, as key deciding factors to detect machine versus human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:42:09Z)
• ESPERANTO: Evaluating Synthesized Phrases to Enhance Robustness in AI Detection for Text Origination [1.8418334324753884]
  This paper introduces back-translation as a novel technique for evading detection. We present a model that combines these back-translated texts to produce a manipulated version of the original AI-generated text. We evaluate this technique on nine AI detectors, including six open-source and three proprietary systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T01:13:22Z)
• Applying Ensemble Methods to Model-Agnostic Machine-Generated Text Detection [0.0]
  We study the problem of detecting machine-generated text when the large language model it is possibly derived from is unknown. We use a zero-shot model for machine-generated text detection which is highly accurate when the generative (or base) language model is the same as the discriminative (or scoring) language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T12:58:01Z)
• Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature [33.84718903572477]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the ability to produce fluent and cogent content.<n>To build trustworthy AI systems, it is imperative to distinguish between machine-generated and human-authored content.<n>Fast-DetectGPT is an optimized zero-shot detector that substitutes DetectGPT's perturbation step with a more efficient sampling step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T11:41:28Z)
• Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectors [56.36291277897995]
  Small and partially-trained models are better universal text detectors. We find that whether the detector and generator were trained on the same data is not critically important to the detection success. For instance, the OPT-125M model has an AUC of 0.81 in detecting ChatGPT generations, whereas a larger model from the GPT family, GPTJ-6B, has AUC of 0.45.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T00:09:08Z)
• 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? [50.95804851595018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) perform impressively well in various applications.<n>The potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concern about their responsible use.<n>We stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)
• DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature [143.5381108333212]
  We show that text sampled from an large language model tends to occupy negative curvature regions of the model's log probability function. We then define a new curvature-based criterion for judging if a passage is generated from a given LLM. We find DetectGPT is more discriminative than existing zero-shot methods for model sample detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-26T18:44:06Z)
• A Deep Learning Anomaly Detection Method in Textual Data [0.45687771576879593]
  We propose using deep learning and transformer architectures combined with classical machine learning algorithms. We used multiple machine learning methods such as Sentence Transformers, Autos, Logistic Regression and Distance calculation methods to predict anomalies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T05:18:13Z)

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.