HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI Coauthoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02959v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:52:44 GMT
• Title: HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI Coauthoring
• Authors: Zhixiong Su, Yichen Wang, Herun Wan, Zhaohan Zhang, Minnan Luo,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the possibility of fine-grained MGT detection under human-AI coauthoring.<n>We suggest fine-grained detectors can pave pathways toward coauthored text detection with a numeric AI ratio.<n> Empirical results show that metric-based methods struggle to conduct fine-grained detection with a 0.462 average F1 score.
• Score: 14.887491317701997
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The misuse of large language models (LLMs) poses potential risks, motivating the development of machine-generated text (MGT) detection. Existing literature primarily concentrates on binary, document-level detection, thereby neglecting texts that are composed jointly by human and LLM contributions. Hence, this paper explores the possibility of fine-grained MGT detection under human-AI coauthoring. We suggest fine-grained detectors can pave pathways toward coauthored text detection with a numeric AI ratio. Specifically, we propose a dataset, HACo-Det, which produces human-AI coauthored texts via an automatic pipeline with word-level attribution labels. We retrofit seven prevailing document-level detectors to generalize them to word-level detection. Then we evaluate these detectors on HACo-Det on both word- and sentence-level detection tasks. Empirical results show that metric-based methods struggle to conduct fine-grained detection with a 0.462 average F1 score, while finetuned models show superior performance and better generalization across domains. However, we argue that fine-grained co-authored text detection is far from solved. We further analyze factors influencing performance, e.g., context window, and highlight the limitations of current methods, pointing to potential avenues for improvement.

Related papers

• Stress-testing Machine Generated Text Detection: Shifting Language Models Writing Style to Fool Detectors [4.7713095161046555]
  We present a pipeline to test the resilience of state-of-the-art MGT detectors to linguistically informed adversarial attacks.<n>We fine-tune language models to shift the MGT style toward human-written text (HWT)<n>This exploits the detectors' reliance on stylistic clues, making new generations more challenging to detect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T12:33:30Z)
• Your Language Model Can Secretly Write Like Humans: Contrastive Paraphrase Attacks on LLM-Generated Text Detectors [65.27124213266491]
  We propose textbfContrastive textbfParaphrase textbfAttack (CoPA), a training-free method that effectively deceives text detectors.<n>CoPA constructs an auxiliary machine-like word distribution as a contrast to the human-like distribution generated by large language models.<n>Our theoretical analysis suggests the superiority of the proposed attack.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T10:08:39Z)
• AuthorMist: Evading AI Text Detectors with Reinforcement Learning [4.806579822134391]
  AuthorMist is a novel reinforcement learning-based system to transform AI-generated text into human-like writing.<n>We show that AuthorMist effectively reduces the detectability of AI-generated text while preserving the original meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T12:41:05Z)
• Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection [44.05134959039957]
  We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors.<n>Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects.<n>These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:49:31Z)
• 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)
• Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Text [61.22649031769564]
  We propose a novel framework, paraphrased text span detection (PTD) PTD aims to identify paraphrased text spans within a text. We construct a dedicated dataset, PASTED, for paraphrased text span detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T11:22:27Z)
• SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection [62.3792779440284]
  We introduce a sentence-level detection challenge by synthesizing documents polished with large language models (LLMs) We then propose textbfSequence textbfX (Check) textbfGPT, a novel method that utilizes log probability lists from white-box LLMs as features for sentence-level AIGT detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:18:53Z)
• On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection [76.55825911221434]
  We argue that as machine-generated text approximates human-like quality, the sample size needed for detection bounds increases. We test various state-of-the-art text generators, including GPT-2, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama, Llama-2-13B-Chat-HF, and Llama-2-70B-Chat-HF, against detectors, including oBERTa-Large/Base-Detector, GPTZero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T17:47:39Z)
• 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)

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.