Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Kill two birds with one stone: generalized and robust AI-generated text detection via dynamic perturbations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding learned noise during training lets one AI-text detector reach 86.10% accuracy on unseen domains.

desk verdict Useful empirical recipe for robust AIGT detection, but the headline SOTA claim is stronger than the per-domain numbers support and the mechanism story is explicitly unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21019 v2 pith:ASMF5SQD submitted 2025-04-22 cs.CL cs.AI

Yinghan Zhou , Juan Wen , Wanli Peng , Yiming Xue , Ziwei Zhang , Zhengxian Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords AI-generatedtextdetectiondomaingeneralizationadversarialrobustnessdynamicperturbationsreinforcementlearningnoise-enhancedtrainingcross-domainDDPG
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that generalization and robustness in AI-generated text detection are two responses to the same underlying cause: perturbation of the source domain. It argues that if slight noise added to source-domain embeddings reproduces the distribution shift between source and target domains, then a detector trained to ignore that noise should both generalize to unseen domains and survive adversarial rewriting. To exploit this, the paper proposes DP-Net, which injects reinforcement-learned Gaussian noise into the embedding matrix during training and reports 86.10% average detection accuracy across seven unseen target domains, at least 5.55% above the compared baselines. The reason a reader should care is that it is a single training recipe aimed at removing the usual trade-off between detectors that generalize well and detectors that resist attacks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the noise-enhanced embedding $E_n = E_x + \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$, where Gaussian noise is added to the fixed RoBERTa embedding of each input text. A deep reinforcement learning agent (DDPG) continuously adjusts the mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$ during training, using a reward built from the classifier loss on original and noisy samples. A distance loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{dis}} = \|z_x - z_n\|_2^2$ forces the feature extractor to map clean and noisy representations to the same place, and that learned invariance is what the paper claims transfers to unseen domains and to adversarial rewrites.

What would settle it

Take a target domain not among the seven reported ones, measure the statistical distance (KL divergence) between target embeddings and source embeddings perturbed by DP-Net's learned noise, and compare that distance with the detector's accuracy on that target. If the two distributions are far apart while accuracy is high, or close together while accuracy is low, the claimed equivalence between perturbation and domain shift is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that robustness is a specific case of domain shift, and that carefully calibrated dynamic perturbations added to source-domain embeddings during training improve generalization and robustness at the same time. The authors support this with KL-divergence measurements showing that source-plus-Gaussian-noise embeddings sit at distances comparable to real cross-domain pairs, and with feature visualizations indicating that a detector trained with reinforcement-learned noise achieves clearer decision boundaries in unseen target domains. The resulting DP-Net, trained solely on ChatGPT-written text from a single corpus, reports 86.10% average accuracy over seven unseen domains and the best average robustness under synonym replacement and paraphrase attacks, including a 68.73% average under paraphrase, 9.46% above the second-best baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that adding a small, adaptively tuned amount of Gaussian noise to source-domain embeddings genuinely reproduces the kind of difference that exists between the training text style and an unseen target text style, so that learning to ignore that noise transfers to new domains; the paper states this equivalence is not proved by an explicit mathematical expression.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trained once on a single source domain, the detector can be applied to unseen corpora and generators without target-domain fine-tuning, according to the reported 86.10% average accuracy across seven domains.
  • Robustness to synonym replacement and paraphrase attacks follows from the same noise-enhanced training procedure, so no separate adversarial-training loop is needed.
  • The reinforcement-learning adjustment is load-bearing: fixed Gaussian or uniform noise gives clearly lower average accuracy across the seven target domains, while the RL-tuned version gives the reported result.
  • The noise-enhanced training is data-efficient: using 75% of the source training data costs only 2.34% average accuracy, whereas a naive classifier loses much more.
  • DP-Net reports the fastest inference time among the compared methods on the same evaluation sample.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the perturbation-as-domain-shift mechanism is right, the RL policy's learned noise parameters should correlate with the measured statistical distance between source and target domains; that correlation can be tested on held-out domain pairs.
  • Because the bias-variance argument is generic, the same RL-driven perturbation recipe could improve cross-domain robustness for other text classifiers, such as authorship attribution or toxic-content detection.
  • The paper's reported false-positive pattern, where human-written text is more often mislabeled as AI-generated, suggests a calibration cost worth studying separately before deployment.
  • A natural untested extension is multi-source training: the authors leave open whether one shared RL-controlled noise distribution can cover several source domains at once.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DP-Net, a black-box AIGT detector that adds Gaussian noise to RoBERTa embeddings during training, with the noise mean and variance controlled by a DDPG reinforcement learning agent. The authors argue that robustness is a specific form of domain shift and that dynamic perturbations can simultaneously improve cross-domain generalization and adversarial robustness. Experiments on the M4 benchmark show DP-Net+G reaching 86.10% average accuracy across seven unseen target domains and high average AUROC under synonym replacement and paraphrase attacks, alongside a stated limitation that the underlying mechanism is not proved mathematically.

Significance. The idea of using RL-tuned input perturbations to unify generalization and robustness is a novel direction for AIGT detection, and the paper provides a concrete algorithm, public code, and comparisons against five baselines on multi-source M4 data. If validated with proper uncertainty quantification and more careful per-domain reporting, the method would be a useful contribution. The main weaknesses are that the headline empirical claims rest on pooled point averages without error bars or significance tests and on a mechanism explicitly conceded to be unproven in Section 6.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Tables 2 and 3] The manuscript states that reinforcement learning experiments are averaged over five random seeds, but no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere. Under the paraphrase attack the claimed advantage of DP-Net+G over DP-Net+U is only 0.22 AUROC (68.73 vs 68.51), and the average-accuracy advantage over DP-Net+U is 0.62 points (86.10 vs 85.48). With no variance information, it is impossible to tell whether these differences reflect signal or seed noise. Please report per-seed results with paired significance tests, or temper the superiority claims accordingly.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 4.4] The claim that DP-Net surpasses other baselines by at least 5.55% holds only for the pooled average accuracy across seven targets. Fast-DetectGPT achieves higher accuracy on three of the seven target domains, including large reversals such as 97.12 vs 77.62 on Peerread-D and 79.90 vs 66.62 on Wikihow-C. The phrase 'state-of-the-art in three cross-domain scenarios' is therefore overstated; please report per-domain wins and losses explicitly and characterize the method as improving average, not universal, performance.
  3. [§3.1 and §6] The load-bearing premise that slight embedding noise effectively simulates domain shift is supported only by the qualitative KLD comparisons in Figure 2 and feature visualizations in Figure 3, without numerical values, confidence intervals, or a formal derivation. Section 6 explicitly concedes that the mechanism 'does not be proved by explicit mathematical expression.' Please either provide quantitative validation of the proposed mechanism or clearly label it as an empirical heuristic that motivates the method rather than an established explanation.
  4. [Table 3 and Section 4.5] The 'best robustness' claim is metric-dependent: under the paraphrase attack, DP-Net+G has an average AUROC of 68.73 but an F1 of 61.77, which is lower than both RoBERTa (67.22) and GLTR (66.75) on average. The manuscript mentions this in passing, but the abstract and conclusions should explicitly scope the robustness claim to average AUROC, not overall detection quality, to avoid overstating the result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The text lists the loss weights as 'λ1 = 0.5, λ2 = 0.5, λ2 = 0.01'; the second λ2 should be λ3.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'that robustness can be view' (Abstract), 'reperents' (Eq. 3), 'Comparasion' (Figure 5), 'domian' (Appendices B and C), 'dose not be proved' (Section 6), and 'Naive Classifer' (Table 2 caption). Please proofread carefully.
  3. [Figure 7] The caption contains 'unkown domains'; please correct to 'unknown domains'.
  4. [Table 2] The naming of domains is inconsistent: 'Wikihow-C' versus 'WikiHow-C' appears in the text and table, and the column header 'DP-Net +U(ours)' has a spacing artifact. Please unify notation.
  5. [Algorithm 1] Line 13 reads 'update politic network ν' and should read 'policy network'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DP-Net's target-domain evaluations are held out, and the reinforcement-learning noise controller is rewarded only on source-domain loss.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that dynamic perturbations added to embeddings during training improve generalization and robustness. The load-bearing training signal is the source-domain loss: in Section 3.3, the reward in Eq. (7) is a function of the model loss L from Eq. (6), and Eq. (6) is composed entirely of classification losses and a distance loss computed on source-domain samples. Algorithm 1 updates the detector on D sampled from source-domain training data. Tables 2 and 3 evaluate on seven unseen target domains after training on Arxiv ChatGPT, so target labels and target-domain losses never enter training. The RL controller therefore does not fit target-domain performance by construction, and the reported cross-domain accuracies are genuine held-out measurements rather than renamed fitted values. The 'intrinsic mechanism' claim is an empirical KLD observation (Figure 2) plus a bias-variance heuristic (Eq. (1)); it is not derived from the target results. The post-hoc comparison of Gaussian versus uniform noise in Section 4.6 is a model-selection choice made after inspecting the benchmark averages, which is a statistical reporting risk and can inflate the headline number, but it is a binary selection between two fixed noise families, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The Limitation section explicitly concedes that the mechanism 'does not be proved by explicit mathematical expression,' which undercuts the explanatory claim but does not make the empirical evaluation circular. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no derivation equation that reduces to its own input. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's performance depends on several hand-set hyperparameters (loss weights, reward threshold, noise range) and on unproven assumptions linking noise to domain shift. No entity is newly posited; the 'dynamic perturbation' is a trained augmenter, not a physical entity.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda1 (weight of clean cross-entropy loss) = 0.5
    Set manually in Section 4.3; no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda2 (weight of noisy cross-entropy loss) = 0.5
    Set manually in Section 4.3; no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda3 (weight of distance loss) = 0.01
    Listed in Section 4.3; the text erroneously repeats lambda2=0.01.
  • epsilon (reward threshold) = 1
    Defined in Eq. (7) and set in Section 4.3; controls reward shape.
  • Initial noise mean/variance range = not specified
    Section 3.2 says noise is generated within a specified range, but the range is not given.
  • DDPG learning rates = actor/critic 3e-4, encoder 8e-5
    Section 4.3; standard optimizer settings.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bias-variance decomposition (Pedro 2000) applies and justifies noise-induced variance reduction
    Invoked in Section 3.1, Eq. (1); the paper does not derive the variance dependence on noise.
  • domain assumption Adding slight perturbations to source-domain embeddings simulates domain shift between source and target domains
    Section 3.1 and Figure 2; only empirically argued with KL divergence, not proven. Limitation admits no explicit mathematical proof.
  • domain assumption Adversarial attacks are a specific form of domain shift within the source domain, so robustness can be handled by the same noise mechanism
    Section 1 and 3.1; used to justify that noise augmentation improves robustness without a dedicated adversarial training objective.
  • standard math DDPG can learn a useful noise policy from the scalar reward based on training loss
    Section 3.3; assumes the RL optimization converges to a policy that improves generalization, which is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kill two birds with one stone: generalized and robust AI-generated text detection via dynamic perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASMF5SQD

@misc{pith2026250421019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kill two birds with one stone: generalized and robust AI-generated text detection via dynamic perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASMF5SQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21019}
}
read the original abstract

The growing popularity of large language models has raised concerns regarding the potential to misuse AI-generated text (AIGT). It becomes increasingly critical to establish an excellent AIGT detection method with high generalization and robustness. However, existing methods either focus on model generalization or concentrate on robustness. The unified mechanism, to simultaneously address the challenges of generalization and robustness, is less explored. In this paper, we argue that robustness can be view as a specific form of domain shift, and empirically reveal an intrinsic mechanism for model generalization of AIGT detection task. Then, we proposed a novel AIGT detection method (DP-Net) via dynamic perturbations introduced by a reinforcement learning with elaborated reward and action. Experimentally, extensive results show that the proposed DP-Net significantly outperforms some state-of-the-art AIGT detection methods for generalization capacity in three cross-domain scenarios. Meanwhile, the DP-Net achieves best robustness under two text adversarial attacks. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/CAU-ISS-Lab/AIGT-Detection-Evade-Detection/tree/main/DP-Net.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization results of features extracted by detectors with different training strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The impact of adding noise on the general [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The overall framework of DP-Net. This framework includes three modules: text encoding, noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The impact of different noise distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of Domain Generalization De [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Detection result on 6 different domains using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data efficiency experiment. NC-75% indi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    arXiv.org submitters. 2024. https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/7548853 arxiv dataset

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bpcgcr8E8Z Fast-detect GPT : Efficient zero-shot detection of machine-generated text via conditional probability curvature . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Amrita Bhattacharjee, Tharindu Kumarage, Raha Moraffah, and Huan Liu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 C on DA : Contrastive domain adaptation for AI -generated text detection . In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 2023

  6. [6]

    Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean,...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 2022

  7. [7]

    Roberto Corizzo and Sebastian Leal-Arenas. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData59044.2023.10386674 One-gpt: A one-class deep fusion model for machine-generated text detection . In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData), pages 5743--5752

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07597 How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection . Preprint, arXiv:2301.07597

    arXiv 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Beizhe Hu, Qiang Sheng, Juan Cao, Yuhui Shi, Yang Li, Danding Wang, and Peng Qi. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i20.30214 Bad actor, good advisor: Exploring the role of large language models in fake news detection . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/30e15e5941ae0cdab7ef58cc8d59a4ca-Paper-Conference.pdf Radar: Robust ai-text detection via adversarial learning . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vo...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Guanhua Huang, Yuchen Zhang, Zhe Li, Yongjian You, Mingze Wang, and Zhouwang Yang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01179 Are ai-generated text detectors robust to adversarial perturbations? Preprint, arXiv:2406.01179

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ryuto Koike, Masahiro Kaneko, and Naoaki Okazaki. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11729 Outfox: Llm-generated essay detection through in-context learning with adversarially generated examples . Preprint, arXiv:2307.11729

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Frederick Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=WbFhFvjjKj Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI -generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Inform...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Linyang Li , Pengyu Wang , Ke Ren , Tianxiang Sun , and Xipeng Qiu . 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.14072 Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMs . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.14072

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lillicrap, Jonathan J

    Timothy P. Lillicrap, Jonathan J. Hunt, Alexander Pritzel, Nicolas Heess, Tom Erez, Yuval Tassa, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02971 Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:1509.02971

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sicong Liu, Xi Sheryl Zhang, Yushuo Li, Yifan Zhang, and Jian Cheng. 2023 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=-nm-rHXi5ga On the data-efficiency with contrastive image transformation in reinforcement learning . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  9. [17]

    Xiaoming Liu, Zhaohan Zhang, Yichen Wang, Hang Pu, Yu Lan, and Chao Shen. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1005 C o C o: Coherence-enhanced machine-generated text detection under low resource with contrastive learning . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SyxS0T4tvS Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach

    2020

  11. [19]

    Niloofar Mireshghallah, Justus Mattern, Sicun Gao, Reza Shokri, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-short.25 Smaller language models are better zero-shot machine-generated text detectors . In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Detectgpt: zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'23. JMLR.org

    2023

  13. [21]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Domingos Pedro. 2000. A unified bias-variance decomposition and its applications. In 17th International conference on machine learning, pages 231--238

    2000

  15. [23]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9

    2019

  16. [24]

    Gehrmann Sebastian, Strobelt Hendrik, and Rush Alexander. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-3019 GLTR : Statistical detection and visualization of generated text . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrat...

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Chen, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews

    Rafael Alberto Rivera Soto, Kailin Koch, Aleem Khan, Barry Y. Chen, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=cWiEN1plhJ Few-shot detection of machine-generated text using style representations . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learn...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Jinyan Su, Claire Cardie, and Preslav Nakov. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-naacl.95 Adapting fake news detection to the era of large language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 1473--1490, Mexico City, Mexico...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Jinyan Su, Terry Zhuo, Di Wang, and Preslav Nakov. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.827 D etect LLM : Leveraging log rank information for zero-shot detection of machine-generated text . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 20...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Yuchuan Tian, Hanting Chen, Xutao Wang, Zheyuan Bai, QINGHUA ZHANG, Ruifeng Li, Chao Xu, and Yunhe Wang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=5Lp6qU9hzV Multiscale positive-unlabeled detection of AI -generated texts . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repres...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Saranya Venkatraman, Adaku Uchendu, and Dongwon Lee. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-naacl.8 GPT -who: An information density-based machine-generated text detector . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 103--115, Mexico C...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Vivek Verma, Eve Fleisig, Nicholas Tomlin, and Dan Klein. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.95 Ghostbuster: Detecting text ghostwritten by large language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computatio...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Pengyu Wang, Linyang Li, Ke Ren, Botian Jiang, Dong Zhang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.73 S eq XGPT : Sentence-level AI -generated text detection . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pag...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Chenxi Whitehouse, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Toru Sasaki, Thomas Arnold, Alham Fikri Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Kangxi Wu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.139 LLMD et: A third party large language models generated text detection tool . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, ...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Xianjun Yang, Wei Cheng, Yue Wu, Linda Ruth Petzold, William Yang Wang, and Haifeng Chen. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Xlayxj2fWp DNA - GPT : Divergent n-gram analysis for training-free detection of GPT -generated text . In The Twelfth International Conference on Lear...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zijie Zeng, Lele Sha, Yuheng Li, Kaixun Yang, Dragan Gašević, and Guangliang Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i20.30258 Towards automatic boundary detection for human-ai collaborative hybrid essay in education . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Wanjun Zhong, Duyu Tang, Zenan Xu, Ruize Wang, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, Jiahai Wang, and Jian Yin. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.193 Neural deepfake detection with factual structure of text . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Ying Zhou, Ben He, and Le Sun. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.739 Humanizing machine-generated content: Evading AI -text detection through adversarial attack . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resou...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Biru Zhu, Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Chong Fu, Bingxiang He, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Ming Gu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.463 Beat LLM s at their own game: Zero-shot LLM -generated text detection via querying C hat GPT . In P...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.