Cat and Mouse -- Can Fake Text Generation Outpace Detector Systems?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21274v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:58:43 GMT
• Title: Cat and Mouse -- Can Fake Text Generation Outpace Detector Systems?
• Authors: Andrea McGlinchey, Peter J Barclay,
• Abstract summary: Large language models can produce convincing "fake text" in domains such as academic writing, product reviews, and political news.<n>Many approaches have been investigated for the detection of artificially generated text.<n>We show that reliable detection of fake text may remain feasible even for ever-larger models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models can produce convincing "fake text" in domains such as academic writing, product reviews, and political news. Many approaches have been investigated for the detection of artificially generated text. While this may seem to presage an endless "arms race", we note that newer LLMs use ever more parameters, training data, and energy, while relatively simple classifiers demonstrate a good level of detection accuracy with modest resources. To approach the question of whether the models' ability to beat the detectors may therefore reach a plateau, we examine the ability of statistical classifiers to identify "fake text" in the style of classical detective fiction. Over a 0.5 version increase, we found that Gemini showed an increased ability to generate deceptive text, while GPT did not. This suggests that reliable detection of fake text may remain feasible even for ever-larger models, though new model architectures may improve their deceptiveness

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)
• 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)
• DetectRL: Benchmarking LLM-Generated Text Detection in Real-World Scenarios [38.952481877244644]
  We present a new benchmark, DetectRL, highlighting that even state-of-the-art (SOTA) detection techniques still underperformed in this task.<n>Using popular large language models (LLMs), we generated data that better aligns with real-world applications.<n>We analyzed the potential impact of writing styles, model types, attack methods, the text lengths, and real-world human writing factors on different types of detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T09:01:25Z)
• 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)
• Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Texts [27.956604193427772]
  Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled (MPU) training framework is proposed to address the difficulty of short-text detection. MPU method augments detection performance on long AI-generated texts, and significantly improves short-text detection of language model detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T15:25:00Z)
• MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild [82.70561073277801]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved human-level text generation, emphasizing the need for effective AI-generated text detection. We build a comprehensive testbed by gathering texts from diverse human writings and texts generated by different LLMs. Despite challenges, the top-performing detector can identify 86.54% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:13:29Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.