Beyond Easy Wins: A Text Hardness-Aware Benchmark for LLM-generated Text Detection
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15286v1
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 06:37:27 GMT
- Title: Beyond Easy Wins: A Text Hardness-Aware Benchmark for LLM-generated Text Detection
- Authors: Navid Ayoobi, Sadat Shahriar, Arjun Mukherjee,
- Abstract summary: We present a novel evaluation paradigm for AI text detectors that prioritizes real-world and equitable assessment.<n>Our benchmark, SHIELD, addresses these limitations by integrating both reliability and stability factors into a unified evaluation metric.<n>We develop a model-agnostic humanification framework that modifies AI text to more closely resemble human authorship, incorporating a controllable hardness parameter.
- Score: 0.38233569758620056
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: We present a novel evaluation paradigm for AI text detectors that prioritizes real-world and equitable assessment. Current approaches predominantly report conventional metrics like AUROC, overlooking that even modest false positive rates constitute a critical impediment to practical deployment of detection systems. Furthermore, real-world deployment necessitates predetermined threshold configuration, making detector stability (i.e. the maintenance of consistent performance across diverse domains and adversarial scenarios), a critical factor. These aspects have been largely ignored in previous research and benchmarks. Our benchmark, SHIELD, addresses these limitations by integrating both reliability and stability factors into a unified evaluation metric designed for practical assessment. Furthermore, we develop a post-hoc, model-agnostic humanification framework that modifies AI text to more closely resemble human authorship, incorporating a controllable hardness parameter. This hardness-aware approach effectively challenges current SOTA zero-shot detection methods in maintaining both reliability and stability. (Data and code: https://github.com/navid-aub/SHIELD-Benchmark)
Related papers
- RoHOI: Robustness Benchmark for Human-Object Interaction Detection [38.09248570129455]
Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection is crucial for robot-human assistance, enabling context-aware support.<n>We introduce the first benchmark for HOI detection, evaluating model resilience under diverse challenges.<n>Our benchmark, RoHOI, includes 20 corruption types based on HICO-DET and V-COCO datasets and a new robustness-focused metric.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-12T01:58:04Z) - Rethinking Semi-supervised Segmentation Beyond Accuracy: Reliability and Robustness [10.220692937750295]
Reliable Score ( RSS) is a novel metric that combines predictive accuracy, calibration, and uncertainty quality measures via a harmonic mean.<n>We advocate for a shift in evaluation protocols toward more holistic metrics like RSS to better align semi-supervised learning research with real-world deployment needs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-06T09:37:45Z) - DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and
Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts.
We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score.
Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z) - ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the
Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection.
We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance.
We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z) - DeepfakeBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Deepfake Detection [55.70982767084996]
A critical yet frequently overlooked challenge in the field of deepfake detection is the lack of a standardized, unified, comprehensive benchmark.
We present the first comprehensive benchmark for deepfake detection, called DeepfakeBench, which offers three key contributions.
DeepfakeBench contains 15 state-of-the-art detection methods, 9CL datasets, a series of deepfake detection evaluation protocols and analysis tools, as well as comprehensive evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-04T01:34:41Z) - Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z) - From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a
Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework [91.94389491920309]
Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs.
The existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples.
We set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-29T14:55:20Z) - On the Robustness of Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis: Rethinking Model,
Data, and Training [109.9218185711916]
Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) aims at automatically inferring the specific sentiment polarities toward certain aspects of products or services behind social media texts or reviews.
We propose to enhance the ABSA robustness by systematically rethinking the bottlenecks from all possible angles, including model, data, and training.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T11:07:43Z) - TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks.
Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations.
Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z) - GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics.
Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation.
It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z) - RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmark [84.50044645539305]
Key challenge in benchmarking robustness is that its evaluation is often error-prone leading to robustness overestimation.
We evaluate adversarial robustness with AutoAttack, an ensemble of white- and black-box attacks.
We analyze the impact of robustness on the performance on distribution shifts, calibration, out-of-distribution detection, fairness, privacy leakage, smoothness, and transferability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-19T17:06:18Z)
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.