Machine Text Detectors are Membership Inference Attacks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19492v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:39:01 GMT
• Title: Machine Text Detectors are Membership Inference Attacks
• Authors: Ryuto Koike, Liam Dugan, Masahiro Kaneko, Chris Callison-Burch, Naoaki Okazaki,
• Abstract summary: We theoretically and empirically investigate the transferability, i.e., how well a method originally developed for one task performs on the other.<n>Our large-scale empirical experiments, including 7 state-of-the-art MIA methods and 5 state-of-the-art machine text detectors, demonstrate very strong rank correlation (rho >) in cross-task performance.<n>Our findings highlight the need for greater cross-task awareness and collaboration between the two research communities.
• Score: 55.07733196689313
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Although membership inference attacks (MIAs) and machine-generated text detection target different goals, identifying training samples and synthetic texts, their methods often exploit similar signals based on a language model's probability distribution. Despite this shared methodological foundation, the two tasks have been independently studied, which may lead to conclusions that overlook stronger methods and valuable insights developed in the other task. In this work, we theoretically and empirically investigate the transferability, i.e., how well a method originally developed for one task performs on the other, between MIAs and machine text detection. For our theoretical contribution, we prove that the metric that achieves the asymptotically highest performance on both tasks is the same. We unify a large proportion of the existing literature in the context of this optimal metric and hypothesize that the accuracy with which a given method approximates this metric is directly correlated with its transferability. Our large-scale empirical experiments, including 7 state-of-the-art MIA methods and 5 state-of-the-art machine text detectors across 13 domains and 10 generators, demonstrate very strong rank correlation (rho > 0.6) in cross-task performance. We notably find that Binoculars, originally designed for machine text detection, achieves state-of-the-art performance on MIA benchmarks as well, demonstrating the practical impact of the transferability. Our findings highlight the need for greater cross-task awareness and collaboration between the two research communities. To facilitate cross-task developments and fair evaluations, we introduce MINT, a unified evaluation suite for MIAs and machine-generated text detection, with implementation of 15 recent methods from both tasks.

Related papers

• Human Texts Are Outliers: Detecting LLM-generated Texts via Out-of-distribution Detection [71.59834293521074]
  We develop a framework to distinguish between human-authored and machine-generated text.<n>Our method achieves 98.3% AUROC and AUPR with only 8.9% FPR95 on DeepFake dataset.<n>Code, pretrained weights, and demo will be released.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T08:14:45Z)
• DetectAnyLLM: Towards Generalizable and Robust Detection of Machine-Generated Text Across Domains and Models [60.713908578319256]
  We propose Direct Discrepancy Learning (DDL) to optimize the detector with task-oriented knowledge.<n>Built upon this, we introduce DetectAnyLLM, a unified detection framework that achieves state-of-the-art MGTD performance.<n>MIRAGE samples human-written texts from 10 corpora across 5 text-domains, which are then re-generated or revised using 17 cutting-edge LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T10:59:57Z)
• On the Robustness of Human-Object Interaction Detection against Distribution Shift [27.40641711088878]
  Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection has seen substantial advances in recent years.<n>Existing works focus on the standard setting with ideal images and natural distribution, far from practical scenarios with inevitable distribution shifts.<n>In this work, we investigate this issue by benchmarking, analyzing, and enhancing the robustness of HOI detection models under various distribution shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T13:01:34Z)
• Open-Domain Text Evaluation via Contrastive Distribution Methods [75.59039812868681]
  We introduce a novel method for evaluating open-domain text generation called Contrastive Distribution Methods. Our experiments on coherence evaluation for multi-turn dialogue and commonsense evaluation for controllable generation demonstrate CDM's superior correlate with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T20:37:54Z)
• Pre-training Multi-task Contrastive Learning Models for Scientific Literature Understanding [52.723297744257536]
  Pre-trained language models (LMs) have shown effectiveness in scientific literature understanding tasks. We propose a multi-task contrastive learning framework, SciMult, to facilitate common knowledge sharing across different literature understanding tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:47:22Z)
• 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)
• MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection [54.81446366272403]
  This paper proposes the first benchmark framework for MGT detection against powerful large language models (LLMs) We show that a larger number of words in general leads to better performance and most detection methods can achieve similar performance with much fewer training samples. Our findings indicate that the model-based detection methods still perform well in the text attribution task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-26T21:12:36Z)

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.