PreprintCited by 1Misinformation and Its ImpactsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

LLM Detectors Still Fall Short of Real World: Case of LLM-Generated Short News-Like Posts

Open access
Gameiro, Henrique Da Silva, Kucharavy, Andrei, Dolamic, Ljiljana·2024·arXiv

Abstract

With the emergence of widely available powerful LLMs, disinformation generated by large Language Models (LLMs) has become a major concern. Historically, LLM detectors have been touted as a solution, but their effectiveness in the real world is still to be proven. In this paper, we focus on an important setting in information operations -- short news-like posts generated by moderately sophisticated attackers. We demonstrate that existing LLM detectors, whether zero-shot or purpose-trained, are not ready for real-world use in that setting. All tested zero-shot detectors perform inconsistently with prior benchmarks and are highly vulnerable to sampling temperature increase, a trivial attack absent from recent benchmarks. A purpose-trained detector generalizing across LLMs and unseen attacks can be developed, but it fails to generalize to new human-written texts. We argue that the former indicates domain-specific benchmarking is needed, while the latter suggests a trade-off between the adversarial evasion resilience and overfitting to the reference human text, with both needing evaluation in benchmarks and currently absent. We believe this suggests a re-consideration of current LLM detector benchmarking approaches and provides a dynamically extensible benchmark to allow it (https://github.com/Reliable-Information-Lab-HEVS/benchmark_llm_texts_detection).

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2409.03291

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Some trained detectors fail to generalize to out-of-distribution human-written text.

    “They also show that some of these detectors fail to generalize to out-of-distribution human-written text.”

    From Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (2023) · cites this paper as Gameiro et al., 2024

  • Trained detectors can generalize better to unseen LLMs but may overfit to the training distribution of human text.

    “Gameiro et al. (2024) argues that while trained detectors can generalize better to unseen LLMs, they may overfit to this training distribution of human text.”

    From Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (2023) · cites this paper as Gameiro et al., 2024

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Daniel Arp, Erwin Quiring, Feargus Pendlebury, Alexander Warnecke, Fabio Pierazzi, Christian Wressnegger, Lorenzo Cavallaro, and Konrad Rieck. 2022. Dos and don'ts of machine learning in com- puter security. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), pages 3971-3988, Boston, MA. USENIX Association.
  2. Anton Bakhtin, Sam Gross, Myle Ott, Yuntian Deng, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Arthur Szlam. 2019. Real or fake? learning to discriminate machine from human generated text. CoRR, abs/1906.03351. · arXiv
  3. Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Fast- DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature. ArXiv:2310.05130 · arXiv
  4. Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan- Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In FAccT '21: 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Virtual Event / Toronto, Canada, March 3-10, 2021, pages 610-623. ACM. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2023. Can llm-generated misinformation be detected? ArXiv, abs/2309.13788. · arXiv
  6. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. ELECTRA: Pre- training Text Encoders as Discriminators Rather Than Generators. ArXiv:2003.10555 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Henrique Da Silva Gameiro. 2024. LLM Detectors, pages 197-204. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham. · DOI
  8. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Renee DiRESTA. 2018. Computational propaganda: If you make it trend, you make it true. The Yale Review.
  10. Liam Dugan, Alyssa Hwang, Filip Trhlik, Josh Magnus Ludan, Andrew Zhu, Hainiu Xu, Daphne Ippolito, and Christopher Callison-Burch. 2024. Raid: A shared benchmark for robust evaluation of machine- generated text detectors. ArXiv, abs/2405.07940. · arXiv
  11. Vitalii Fishchuk and Daniel Braun. 2023. Efficient black-box adversarial attacks on neural text detectors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (IC- NLSP 2023), Virtual Event, 16-17 December 2023, pages 78-83. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  12. Josh A. Goldstein, Girish Sastry, Micah Musser, Re- nee DiResta, Matthew Gentzel, and Katerina Sedova. 2023. Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations. ArXiv, abs/2301.04246. · arXiv
  13. Suriya Gunasekar, Yi Zhang, Jyoti Aneja, Caio César Teodoro Mendes, Allie Del Giorno, Sivakanth Gopi, Mojan Javaheripi, Piero Kauffmann, Gustavo de Rosa, Olli Saarikivi, Adil Salim, Shital Shah, Harkirat Singh Behl, Xin Wang, Sébastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Adam Tauman Kalai, Yin Tat Lee, and Yuanzhi Li. 2023. Textbooks are all you need. CoRR, abs/2306.11644. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Xinlei He, Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Johnson Chen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2023. Mgt- bench: Benchmarking machine-generated text de- tection. ArXiv, abs/2303.14822. · arXiv
  15. Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP. ArXiv:1902.00751 [cs, stat]. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2024. Token-Ensemble Text Generation: On Attack- ing the Automatic AI-Generated Text Detection. ArXiv:2402.11167 [cs. · arXiv
  17. Daphne Ippolito, Daniel Duckworth, Chris Callison- Burch, and Douglas Eck. 2020. Automatic detection of generated text is easiest when humans are fooled. In ACL.
  18. Maurice Jakesch, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2022. Human heuristics for ai-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120.
  19. Kalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2023b. Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense. ArXiv:2303.13408 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Andrei Kucharavy, El Mahdi El Mhamdi, and Rachid Guerraoui. 2020. Host-pathongen co-evolution in- spired algorithm enables robust GAN training. CoRR, abs/2006.04720. · arXiv
  21. Yafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi, Zhilin Wang, Longyue Wang, Linyi Yang, Shuming Shi, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Mage: Machine-generated text detec- tion in the wild. ArXiv.
  22. Weixin Liang, Mert Yuksekgonul, Yining Mao, Eric Wu, and James Zou. 2023a. GPT detec- tors are biased against non-native English writers. ArXiv:2304.02819 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692. · arXiv
  24. Dominik Macko, Róbert Móro, Adaku Uchendu, Ja- son Samuel Lucas, Michiharu Yamashita, Matús Pikuliak, Ivan Srba, Thai Le, Dongwon Lee, Jakub Simko, and Mária Bieliková. 2023. Multitude: Large- scale multilingual machine-generated text detection benchmark. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, pages 9960-9987. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lennart Maschmeyer. 2022. A new and better quiet option? strategies of subversion and cyber conflict. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46:570 -594.
  26. Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radical- ization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. ArXiv, abs/2009.06807. · arXiv
  27. Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature. ArXiv:2301.11305 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sandra Mitrović, Davide Andreoletti, and Omran Ay- oub. 2023. ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Ex- plain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text. ArXiv:2301.13852 [cs]. · DOI
  29. Micah Musser. 2023. A cost analysis of generative language models and influence operations. ArXiv, abs/2308.03740. · arXiv
  30. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. CoRR, abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  31. Diogo Pacheco, Pik-Mai Hui, Christopher Torres-Lugo, Bao Tran Truong, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2021. Uncovering coordinated networks on social media: Methods and case studies. In Proceed- ings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2021, held virtu- ally, June 7-10, 2021, pages 455-466. AAAI Press.
  32. Xiao Pu, Jingyu Zhang, Xiaochuang Han, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Tianxing He. 2023. On the zero-shot generalization of machine-generated text detectors. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, pages 4799-4808. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  33. Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Aounon Kumar, Sriram Bal- asubramanian, Wenxiao Wang, and Soheil Feizi. 2024. Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? ArXiv:2303.11156 [cs. · arXiv
  34. Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Radford, and Jasmine Wang. 2019. Release strategies and the social impacts of language models. ArXiv, abs/1908.09203. · arXiv
  35. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton- Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, An- thony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Di- ana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Mar- tinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Moly- bog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizen- stein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subrama- nian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Tay- lor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurélien Ro- driguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models. CoRR, abs/2307.09288. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Leandro von Werra, Clémentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Nathan Sarrazin, Omar San- seviero, Alexander M. Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2023. Zephyr: Direct distillation of LM alignment. CoRR, abs/2310.16944. · DOI
  37. Yichen Wang, Shangbin Feng, Abe Bohan Hou, Xiao Pu, Chao Shen, Xiaoming Liu, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Tianxing He. 2024a. Stumbling blocks: Stress testing the robustness of machine-generated text detectors under attacks. ArXiv, abs/2402.11638. · arXiv
  38. Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Chenxi White- house, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Toru Sasaki, Thomas Arnold, Alham Fikri Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov. 2024b. M4: multi-generator, multi-domain, and multi-lingual black-box machine-generated text de- tection. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, EACL 2024 -Volume 1: Long Papers, St. Julian's, Malta, March 17-22, 2024, pages 1369-1407. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  39. Jiaying Wu and Bryan Hooi. 2023a. Fake news in sheep's clothing: Robust fake news detec- tion against llm-empowered style attacks. ArXiv, abs/2310.10830. · arXiv
  40. Jiaying Wu and Bryan Hooi. 2023b. Fake News in Sheep's Clothing: Robust Fake News De- tection Against LLM-Empowered Style Attacks. ArXiv:2310.10830 [cs. · arXiv
  41. Han Xu, Jie Ren, Pengfei He, Shenglai Zeng, Yingqian Cui, Amy Liu, Hui Liu, and Jiliang Tang. 2023. On the generalization of training-based chatgpt detection methods. CoRR, abs/2310.01307. · DOI
  42. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Defending against neural fake news. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, De- cember 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 9051-9062.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gameiro, H. D. S., Kucharavy, A., & Dolamic, L.
Affiliations
  • HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (CH)
  • Bundesamt für Rüstung armasuisse (CH)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403794681
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
LLM-generated text detection, disinformation, information operations, evasion attacks, benchmarking

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