Authorship Obfuscation in Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detection (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Dominik Macko, Robert Moro, Adaku Uchendu, Ivan Srba, Jason Lucas, Michiharu Yamashita, Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Dongwon Lee, Jakub Simko, Maria Bielikova
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Language Modeling have birthed Large Language Models (LLMs), which exhibit significant improvements, including the ability to generate texts easily misconstrued as humanwritten. |
| Approach: | They compare authorship obfuscation methods against machine-generated text (MGT) in 11 languages and analyze their performance against 37 well-known AO methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods can cause evasion of detection in all languages, with homoglyph attacks particularly successful. |
Similar Papers
Authorship Attribution in Multilingual Machine-Generated Texts (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have reached human-like fluency and coherence, but distinguishing machine-generated text from human-written content becomes increasingly difficult. |
| Approach: | They propose a problem of multilingual authorship attribution (AA) that involves attributing texts to human or multiple LLM generators across diverse languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can be adapted to multilingual settings, but still has significant limitations and challenges. |
LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected? (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
Qihui Zhang, Chujie Gao, Dongping Chen, Yue Huang, Yixin Huang, Zhenyang Sun, Shilin Zhang, Weiye Li, Zhengyan Fu, Yao Wan, Lichao Sun
| Challenge: | Current research focuses on purely MGT detection without adequately addressing mixed scenarios including AI-revised Human-Written Text (HWT) and human-revealed MGT. |
| Approach: | They define mixtext, a form of mixed text involving both AI and human-generated content, and then use a MixSet dataset to assess their effectiveness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed detectors struggle to identify mixtext, particularly in dealing with subtle modifications and style adaptability. |
M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Giovanni Puccetti, Thomas Arnold, Alham Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, Preslav Nakov
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have brought an unprecedented surge in machine-generated text (MGT) societal implications are posed by their potential misuse and lack of training data. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to detect machine-generated text in multiple languages . they use multi-domain and multi-generator corpus to identify which model generated the text . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark compares a multilingual, multi-domain and multi-generator corpus of MGTs with human-generated content. |
M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection (2024.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Chenxi Whitehouse, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Toru Sasaki, Thomas Arnold, Alham Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, Preslav Nakov
| Challenge: | Large language models generate fluent responses to user queries, but they are also susceptible to misuse in journalism, education, and academia. |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale benchmark for machine-generated text detection that is a multi-generator, multi-domain, and multi-lingual corpus. |
| Outcome: | The proposed system can detect machine-generated text and pinpoint misuse . the proposed system is based on a large-scale benchmark dataset . |
Machine-Generated Text Localization (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prior work focused on identifying only part of a document as machine or human written . a key challenge is that short spans of text provide little information indicating if it is machine generated due to its short length . |
| Approach: | They propose a method that localizes the portions of a document that were machine generated. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can detect changes in style or content to boost performance. |
Unraveling Interwoven Roles of Large Language Models in Authorship Privacy: Obfuscation, Mimicking, and Verification (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models have been driven by large-scale training corpora drawn from diverse sources such as websites, news articles, and books. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for analyzing dynamic relationships among LLM-enabled AO, AM, and AV in the context of authorship privacy. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework analyzes the dynamic relationships among LLM-enabled AO, AM, and AV in the context of authorship privacy. |
Stress-testing Machine Generated Text Detection: Shifting Language Models Writing Style to Fool Detectors (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Andrea Pedrotti, Michele Papucci, Cristiano Ciaccio, Alessio Miaschi, Giovanni Puccetti, Felice Dell’Orletta, Andrea Esuli
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the creation of highly realistic synthetic content, raising concerns about the potential for malicious use, such as misinformation and manipulation. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the resilience of state-of-the-art MGT detectors to linguistically informed adversarial attacks by using Direct Preference Optimization to shift the MGT style toward human-written text. |
| Outcome: | The proposed pipeline fine-tunes language models to shift the MGT style toward human-written text (HWT) it obtains generations more challenging to detect by current models, and shows that detectors can be easily fooled with relatively few examples, resulting in a significant drop in detecting performances. |
Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current text generative models excel in producing text that matches the style of human language reasonably well. |
| Approach: | They conduct an in-depth error analysis of the state-of-the-art detector and discuss research directions to guide future work in this exciting area. |
| Outcome: | The proposed detectors can distinguish between human and text generated by the model and can be used to generate fake news and fake product reviews. |
Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attack (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Despite the development of large language models, there are still significant challenges in detecting whether text is generated by a machine. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for a broader class of adversarial attacks to perform minor perturbations in machine-generated content to evade detection. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be compromised in as little as 10 seconds, and improves over iterative adversarial learning. |
MULTITuDE: Large-Scale Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detection Benchmark (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Dominik Macko, Robert Moro, Adaku Uchendu, Jason Lucas, Michiharu Yamashita, Matúš Pikuliak, Ivan Srba, Thai Le, Dongwon Lee, Jakub Simko, Maria Bielikova
| Challenge: | MULTITuDE benchmarks lack authentic and machine-generated text in languages other than English . defining characteristic of new generation of LLMs is increased quality of text . |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmarking dataset for multilingual machine-generated text detection that compares detectors with authentic and machine-generated texts in 11 languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset compares detectors with zero-shot and fine-tuned detectors in 11 languages. |