Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

DetectRL: Benchmarking LLM-Generated Text Detection in Real-World Scenarios

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 2410.23746 v3 pith:53GXPDCA submitted 2024-10-31 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords detectorsdetectrlreal-worldtextdetectionlikellmsmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting text generated by large language models (LLMs) is of great recent interest. With zero-shot methods like DetectGPT, detection capabilities have reached impressive levels. However, the reliability of existing detectors in real-world applications remains underexplored. In this study, we present a new benchmark, DetectRL, highlighting that even state-of-the-art (SOTA) detection techniques still underperformed in this task. We collected human-written datasets from domains where LLMs are particularly prone to misuse. Using popular LLMs, we generated data that better aligns with real-world applications. Unlike previous studies, we employed heuristic rules to create adversarial LLM-generated text, simulating various prompts usages, human revisions like word substitutions, and writing noises like spelling mistakes. Our development of DetectRL reveals the strengths and limitations of current SOTA detectors. More importantly, we analyzed the potential impact of writing styles, model types, attack methods, the text lengths, and real-world human writing factors on different types of detectors. We believe DetectRL could serve as an effective benchmark for assessing detectors in real-world scenarios, evolving with advanced attack methods, thus providing more stressful evaluation to drive the development of more efficient detectors. Data and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/NLP2CT/DetectRL.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Assessing LLM Text Detection in Educational Contexts: Does Human Contribution Affect Detection?

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    On a new educational benchmark with graded contribution levels, most AI text detectors confuse lightly AI-edited student essays with AI text and falter on harder AI-generated variants.

  2. Black-Box Detection of LLM-Generated Text Using Generalized Jensen-Shannon Divergence

    cs.LG 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SurpMark detects machine-generated text by estimating state-transition matrices from discretized surprisals and scoring them with generalized Jensen-Shannon divergence to human versus machine references.

  3. How does Misinformation Affect Large Language Model Behaviors and Preferences?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MisBench provides a 10.3M-example benchmark of styled, conflict-based misinformation and shows LLMs' detection accuracy depends strongly on conflict type and textual style.

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

    cs.CL 2025-10 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools