Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.14822 v3 pith:GUACRIRL submitted 2023-03-26 cs.CR cs.LG

classification cs.CRcs.LG
keywords detectionmethodsllmspowerfultextdifferentadversarialattacks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Nowadays, powerful large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated revolutionary power in a variety of tasks. Consequently, the detection of machine-generated texts (MGTs) is becoming increasingly crucial as LLMs become more advanced and prevalent. These models have the ability to generate human-like language, making it challenging to discern whether a text is authored by a human or a machine. This raises concerns regarding authenticity, accountability, and potential bias. However, existing methods for detecting MGTs are evaluated using different model architectures, datasets, and experimental settings, resulting in a lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework that encompasses various methodologies. Furthermore, it remains unclear how existing detection methods would perform against powerful LLMs. In this paper, we fill this gap by proposing the first benchmark framework for MGT detection against powerful LLMs, named MGTBench. Extensive evaluations on public datasets with curated texts generated by various powerful LLMs such as ChatGPT-turbo and Claude demonstrate the effectiveness of different detection methods. Our ablation study shows 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. Moreover, we delve into a more challenging task: text attribution. Our findings indicate that the model-based detection methods still perform well in the text attribution task. To investigate the robustness of different detection methods, we consider three adversarial attacks, namely paraphrasing, random spacing, and adversarial perturbations. We discover that these attacks can significantly diminish detection effectiveness, underscoring the critical need for the development of more robust detection methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MAGA-Bench: Machine-Augment-Generated Text via Alignment Detection Benchmark

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding human-alignment augmentation (roleplaying, BPO, self-refine, RLDF) to machine-generated text both fools existing detectors and improves the generalization of detectors fine-tuned on it.

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

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current machine-generated text detectors, especially metric-based ones, perform poorly on word-level detection in coauthored texts, while finetuned DeBERTa achieves strong but imperfect performance.

Pith tools