Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewriting

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 2401.12970 v2 pith:3EHS2EQZ submitted 2024-01-23 cs.CL

Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewriting

classification cs.CL
keywords textdetectionllmsai-generatedcontentmethodraidarrewriting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We find that large language models (LLMs) are more likely to modify human-written text than AI-generated text when tasked with rewriting. This tendency arises because LLMs often perceive AI-generated text as high-quality, leading to fewer modifications. We introduce a method to detect AI-generated content by prompting LLMs to rewrite text and calculating the editing distance of the output. We dubbed our geneRative AI Detection viA Rewriting method Raidar. Raidar significantly improves the F1 detection scores of existing AI content detection models -- both academic and commercial -- across various domains, including News, creative writing, student essays, code, Yelp reviews, and arXiv papers, with gains of up to 29 points. Operating solely on word symbols without high-dimensional features, our method is compatible with black box LLMs, and is inherently robust on new content. Our results illustrate the unique imprint of machine-generated text through the lens of the machines themselves.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A matched four-regime benchmark shows AI-text detectors catch direct LLM output but lose most of their recall on human text rewritten by an LLM.

  2. SenFlow: Inter-Sentence Flow Modeling for AI-Generated Text Detection in Hybrid Documents

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SenFlow integrates graph-based inter-sentence propagation with linear-chain CRF decoding for sentence-level AI-generated text detection and reports SOTA results on the new MOSAIC benchmark of 16k hybrid documents.

  3. Steer-to-Detect: Probing Hidden Representations for Detection of LLM-Generated Texts

    stat.AP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Steer-to-Detect learns a steering vector injected into LLM hidden states to boost class separability and applies hypothesis testing with finite-sample Type I/II error guarantees for generated-text detection.

  4. A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2025-10 reject novelty 4.0

    A dataset of ~58k NYT articles plus AI rewrites from six LLMs, evaluated with a rewrite-distance baseline reaching 58.35% detection and 8.92% attribution accuracy.

  5. Efficient Online LLM Watermark Detection via Rao-Blackwellized E-Processes

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0

    A one-pass e-process detector for the Gumbel-max LLM watermark preserves anytime-valid Type I error control while accumulating evidence token by token.

  6. Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Shared task findings show near-perfect binary detection of AI-generated text but greater difficulty in attributing outputs to particular language models.

  7. Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Shared task findings show F1=1.0000 for binary AI text detection and 0.9531 for model attribution using fine-tuned DeBERTa and BART transformers with ensembles.