Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Zero-Shot Generalization of Machine-Generated Text Detectors

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 2310.05165 v1 pith:FUXOKP3Q submitted 2023-10-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords detectorsdatatextmachine-generatedgeneralizegeneratorgeneratorslanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rampant proliferation of large language models, fluent enough to generate text indistinguishable from human-written language, gives unprecedented importance to the detection of machine-generated text. This work is motivated by an important research question: How will the detectors of machine-generated text perform on outputs of a new generator, that the detectors were not trained on? We begin by collecting generation data from a wide range of LLMs, and train neural detectors on data from each generator and test its performance on held-out generators. While none of the detectors can generalize to all generators, we observe a consistent and interesting pattern that the detectors trained on data from a medium-size LLM can zero-shot generalize to the larger version. As a concrete application, we demonstrate that robust detectors can be built on an ensemble of training data from medium-sized models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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