Cited by 4Authorship Attribution and ProfilingDigital Media Forensic DetectionTopic Modeling

Imitate Before Detect: Aligning Machine Stylistic Preference for Machine-Revised Text Detection

Open access
Chen, Jiaqi, Zhu, Xiaoye, Liu, Tianyang, Chen, Ying, Xinhui, Chen, Yuan, Yiwen, Leong, Chak Tou, Li, Zuchao +6 more·2025·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized text generation, making detecting machine-generated text increasingly challenging. Although past methods have achieved good performance on detecting pure machine-generated text, those detectors have poor performance on distinguishing machine-revised text (rewriting, expansion, and polishing), which can have only minor changes from its original human prompt. As the content of text may originate from human prompts, detecting machine-revised text often involves identifying distinctive machine styles, e.g., worded favored by LLMs. However, existing methods struggle to detect machine-style phrasing hidden within the content contributed by humans. We propose the “Imitate Before Detect” (ImBD) approach, which first imitates the machine-style token distribution, and then compares the distribution of the text to be tested with the machine-style distribution to determine whether the text has been machine-revised. To this end, we introduce Style Preference Optimization (SPO), which aligns a scoring LLM model to the preference of text styles generated by machines. The aligned scoring model is then used to calculate the style-conditional probability curvature (Style-CPC), quantifying the log probability difference between the original and conditionally sampled texts for effective detection. We conduct extensive comparisons across various scenarios, encompassing text revisions by six LLMs, four distinct text domains, and three machine revision types. Compared to existing state-of-the-art methods, our method yields a 13% increase in AUC for detecting text revised by open-source LLMs, and improves performance by 5% and 19% for detecting GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o revised text, respectively. Notably, our method surpasses the commercially trained GPT-Zero with just 1,000 samples and five minutes of SPO, demonstrating its efficiency and effectiveness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v39i22.34525

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Detecting partial AI edits to human text remains harder.

    “Detecting partial AI edits to human text remains harder (Thai et al., 2026; Chen et al., 2025; He et al., 2025).”

    From StoryScope: Investigating idiosyncrasies in AI fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint.
  2. Bao, G.; Zhao, Y.; Teng, Z.; Yang, L.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. Fast-detectgpt: Efficient zero-shot detection of machine- generated text via conditional probability curvature. arXiv preprint.
  3. Bi, X.; Chen, D.; Chen, G.; Chen, S.; Dai, D.; Deng, C.; Ding, H.; Dong, K.; Du, Q.; Fu, Z.; et al. 2024. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint.
  4. NeurIPS.
  5. Chawla, D. S. 2024. Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use. Nature.
  6. Chen, W.; Chen, J.; Qin, P.; Yan, X.; and Wang, W. Y. 2019. Semantically conditioned dialog response generation via hi- erarchical disentangled self-attention. arXiv preprint.
  7. Chen, Y.; Kang, H.; Zhai, V.; Li, L.; Singh, R.; and Raj, B. 2023. Gpt-sentinel: Distinguishing human and chatgpt generated content. arXiv preprint.
  8. Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2023. Palm: Scaling language mod- eling with pathways. JMLR.
  9. Fan, A.; Lewis, M.; and Dauphin, Y. 2018. Hierarchical Neural Story Generation. In Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. Gehrmann, S.; Strobelt, H.; and Rush, A. M. 2019. Gltr: Statistical detection and visualization of generated text. arXiv preprint.
  11. He, X.; Shen, X.; Chen, Z.; Backes, M.; and Zhang, Y. 2024. MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detec- tion. arXiv preprint.
  12. Hong, J.; Lee, N.; and Thorne, J. 2024. Orpo: Monolithic pref- erence optimization without reference model. arXiv preprint.
  13. Hu, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; and Ho, T.-Y. 2023. RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning. In NeurIPS.
  14. Ippolito, D.; Duckworth, D.; Callison-Burch, C.; and Eck, D. 2020. Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled. In Association for Computational Linguistics.
  15. Jiang, A. Q.; Sablayrolles, A.; Roux, A.; Mensch, A.; Savary, B.; Bamford, C.; Chaplot, D. S.; Casas, D. d. l.; Hanna, E. B.; Bressand, F.; et al. 2024. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint.
  16. Jin, Q.; Dhingra, B.; Liu, Z.; Cohen, W. W.; and Lu, X. 2019. PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing.
  17. Liang, W.; Izzo, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Lepp, H.; Cao, H.; Zhao, X.; Chen, L.; Ye, H.; Liu, S.; Huang, Z.; et al. 2024. Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews.
  18. Liu, Y. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint.
  19. Mireshghallah, N.; Mattern, J.; Gao, S.; Shokri, R.; and Berg- Kirkpatrick, T. 2024. Smaller Language Models are Better Zero-shot Machine-Generated Text Detectors. In the Euro- pean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  20. Mitchell, E.; Lee, Y.; Khazatsky, A.; Manning, C. D.; and Finn, C. 2023. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. arXiv preprint.
  21. Narayan, S.; Cohen, S. B.; and Lapata, M. 2018. Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Con- volutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing. OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue. http://web.archive.org/web/20230109000707/ https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/.
  22. Park, R.; Rafailov, R.; Ermon, S.; and Finn, C. 2024. Disen- tangling length from quality in direct preference optimization. arXiv preprint.
  23. Rafailov, R.; Sharma, A.; Mitchell, E.; Manning, C. D.; Er- mon, S.; and Finn, C. 2024. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. NeurIPS, 36.
  24. Brundage, M.; Clark, J.; Askell, A.; Herbert- Voss, A.; Wu, J.; Radford, A.; Krueger, G.; Kim, J. W.; Kreps, S.; et al. 2019. Release strategies and the social impacts of language models. arXiv preprint.
  25. Su, J.; Zhuo, T. Y.; Wang, D.; and Nakov, P. 2023. De- tectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text. arXiv preprint.
  26. Verma, V.; Fleisig, E.; Tomlin, N.; and Klein, D. 2023. Ghost- buster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Mod- els. arXiv preprint.
  27. Wang, Y.; Mansurov, J.; Ivanov, P.; Su, J.; Shelmanov, A.; Tsvigun, A.; Whitehouse, C.; Afzal, O. M.; Mahmoud, T.; Sasaki, T.; et al. 2024. M4: Multi-Generator, Multi-Domain, and Multi-Lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text De- tection. In the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  28. Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Zhou, C.; Li, C.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Dong, G.; Wei, H.; Lin, H.; Tang, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, J.; Tu, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, J.; Yang, J.; Xu, J.; Zhou, J.; Bai, J.; He, J.; Lin, J.; Dang, K.; Lu, K.; Chen, K.; Yang, K.; Li, M.; Xue, M.; Ni, N.; Zhang, P.; Wang, P.; Peng, R.; Men, R.; Gao, R.; Lin, R.; Wang, S.; Bai, S.; Tan, S.; Zhu, T.; Li, T.; Liu, T.; Ge, W.; Deng, X.; Zhou, X.; Ren, X.; Zhang, X.; Wei, X.; Ren, X.; Liu, X.; Fan, Y.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wan, Y.; Chu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Guo, Z.; and Fan, Z. 2024. Qwen2 Technical Report. arXiv:2407.10671. · arXiv
  29. Yang, X.; Cheng, W.; Wu, Y.; Petzold, L.; Wang, W. Y.; and Chen, H. 2023. DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Text. arXiv preprint.
  30. Yuan, H.; Yuan, Z.; Tan, C.; Wang, W.; Huang, S.; and Huang, F. 2024. RRHF: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback. NeurIPS.
  31. Zeng, C.; Tang, S.; Yang, X.; Chen, Y.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, H.; Cheng, W.; Xu, D.; et al. 2024. Improving Logits- based Detector without Logits from Black-box LLMs. arXiv preprint.
  32. Zhang, Q.; Gao, C.; Chen, D.; Huang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, S.; Li, W.; Fu, Z.; Wan, Y.; et al. 2024. LLM- as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine- Generated Text Be Detected? arXiv preprint.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, J., Zhu, X., Liu, T., Chen, Y., Xinhui, C., Yuan, Y., Leong, C. T., Li, Z., Tang, L., Zhang, L., Yan, C., Mei, G., Zhang, J., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
  • Fudan University (CN)
  • South China University of Technology (CN)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Wuhan University (CN)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-04-11
Volume
39
Issue
22
Pages
23559-23567
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4409362845
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, large language models, stylistic preferences, text rewriting, text expansion, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review