The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.
Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay Detection
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in text generation tasks. However, the utilization of these models carries inherent risks, including but not limited to plagiarism, the dissemination of fake news, and issues in educational exercises. Although several detectors have been proposed to address these concerns, their effectiveness against adversarial perturbations, specifically in the context of student essay writing, remains largely unexplored. This paper aims to bridge this gap by constructing AIG-ASAP, an AI-generated student essay dataset, employing a range of text perturbation methods that are expected to generate high-quality essays while evading detection. Through empirical experiments, we assess the performance of current AIGC detectors on the AIG-ASAP dataset. The results reveal that the existing detectors can be easily circumvented using straightforward automatic adversarial attacks. Specifically, we explore word substitution and sentence substitution perturbation methods that effectively evade detection while maintaining the quality of the generated essays. This highlights the urgent need for more accurate and robust methods to detect AI-generated student essays in the education domain.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
For AIGC detection systems against watermarking, techniques such as watermark stealing, Self Color Testing-based Substitution (SCTBS), and language translation have been developed.
“For instance, for AIGC detection systems against watermarking, techniques such as watermark stealing [125], Self Color Testing-based Substitution (SCTBS) [126], and language translation [127] have been developed.”
From Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integrity (2024) · cites this paper as [126]
Normal LLM-generated texts are highly identifiable, but adversarial perturbations such as substitution can effectively reduce the accuracy of detectors.
“Normal LLM-generated texts are highly identifiable, yet adversarial perturbations, such as substitution, can effectively reduce the accuracy of detectors (Peng et al. 2024).”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2024
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 37 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Peng, X., Zhou, Y., He, B., Sun, L., & Sun, Y.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 10406-10419
- arXiv
- 2402.00412
- OpenAlex
- W4389520356
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62272439)
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- AI-generated text detection, student essays, large language models, adversarial attacks, text perturbation, word substitution, academic integrity
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
