pith. sign in

hub

Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?

25 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

25 Pith papers citing it
abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform impressively well in various applications. However, the potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concern about their responsible use. Consequently, the reliable detection of AI-generated text has become a critical area of research. AI text detectors have shown to be effective under their specific settings. In this paper, we stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker. We introduce recursive paraphrasing attack to stress test a wide range of detection schemes, including the ones using the watermarking as well as neural network-based detectors, zero shot classifiers, and retrieval-based detectors. Our experiments conducted on passages, each approximately 300 tokens long, reveal the varying sensitivities of these detectors to our attacks. Our findings indicate that while our recursive paraphrasing method can significantly reduce detection rates, it only slightly degrades text quality in many cases, highlighting potential vulnerabilities in current detection systems in the presence of an attacker. Additionally, we investigate the susceptibility of watermarked LLMs to spoofing attacks aimed at misclassifying human-written text as AI-generated. We demonstrate that an attacker can infer hidden AI text signatures without white-box access to the detection method, potentially leading to reputational risks for LLM developers. Finally, we provide a theoretical framework connecting the AUROC of the best possible detector to the Total Variation distance between human and AI text distributions. This analysis offers insights into the fundamental challenges of reliable detection as language models continue to advance. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/vinusankars/Reliability-of-AI-text-detectors.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 4

citation-polarity summary

roles

background 4

polarities

background 3 support 1

representative citing papers

Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors

cs.CL · 2026-05-19 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Base model text evades AI detectors better than instruction-tuned text, and the HIP method strengthens this trade-off across model sizes.

The End of Trust: How Agentic AI Breaks Security Assumptions

cs.CR · 2026-05-14 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Agentic AI eliminates the fidelity-scale tradeoff in deception, enabling the Infinite Impostor attack that hijacks trusted relationships at mass scale and requiring a shift to suspect-by-default security based on evaluating actions rather than actors.

Detecting Verbatim LLM Copy-Paste in Homework

cs.CR · 2026-05-07 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

SteganoPrompt embeds a hidden instruction in assignment prompts via the Unicode Tags block so that LLMs add a detectable signature to responses when the prompt is pasted verbatim.

Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?

cs.CL · 2023-03-17 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Recursive paraphrasing attacks substantially lower detection rates for multiple AI text detectors with only minor quality loss, while a theoretical analysis ties best-case AUROC to total variation distance between human and AI distributions.

Process Matters more than Output for Distinguishing Humans from Machines

cs.AI · 2026-05-07 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0 · 2 refs

A new battery of 30 cognitive tasks demonstrates that process-level behavioral features distinguish humans from frontier AI agents better than performance metrics (mean AUC 0.88), with process-specific fine-tuning improving mimicry but limited cross-task transfer.

citing papers explorer

Showing 25 of 25 citing papers.