Enhancing LLM Text Detection with Retrieved Contexts and Logits Distribution Consistency (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for detecting large language models (LLMs) generate fluent text, but they only use a few tokens due to the short length or insufficient information in some texts. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that leverages external text corpora to evaluate the difference in logit distribution of input text under retrieved human-written and LLM-rewritten contexts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance in AUROC on five public datasets with three widely-used source LLMs. |
Similar Papers
A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Xianjun Yang, Liangming Pan, Xuandong Zhao, Haifeng Chen, Linda Petzold, William Yang Wang, Wei Cheng
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models have led to an increase in synthetic content generation . the ability to detect LLMs-generated content has become of paramount importance . |
| Approach: | They propose to provide a detailed overview of existing detection strategies and benchmarks, scrutinizing their differences and advocating for more adaptable and robust models to enhance detection accuracy. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model will be able to detect human-written content in real time. |
LLM-DetectAIve: a Tool for Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection (2024.emnlp-demo)
Copied to clipboard
Mervat Abassy, Kareem Elozeiri, Alexander Aziz, Minh Ta, Raj Tomar, Bimarsha Adhikari, Saad Ahmed, Yuxia Wang, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Zhuohan Xie, Jonibek Mansurov, Ekaterina Artemova, Vladislav Mikhailov, Rui Xing, Jiahui Geng, Hasan Iqbal, Zain Mujahid, Tarek Mahmoud, Akim Tsvigun, Alham Aji, Artem Shelmanov, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, Preslav Nakov
| Challenge: | a large number of machine-generated texts are often hard to distinguish between human-written and machine-generated text . this raises concerns about potential misuse, especially within educational and academic domains . |
| Approach: | They propose a system that can detect whether a text is human-written or machine-generated . they use a fine-grained classification schema to identify the use of machine-generated text . |
| Outcome: | The proposed system can distinguish between human-written and machine-generated text . it can detect attempts to obfuscate the fact that a text was machine- generated . |
MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi, Zhilin Wang, Longyue Wang, Linyi Yang, Shuming Shi, Yue Zhang
| Challenge: | Existing research has focused on evaluating detection methods for specific domains or language models. |
| Approach: | They build a testbed to detect texts from diverse human writings and LLMs using different detection methods. |
| Outcome: | Empirical results show that the top performing detector can identify 84.12% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios. |
LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Tool (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing detection tools rely on access to LLMs and can only distinguish between machine-generated and human-authored text. |
| Approach: | They propose a model-specific, secure, efficient, and extendable detection tool that can source text from specific LLMs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed tool can source text from specific LLMs, such as GPT-2, OPT, LLaMA, and others. |
Text Fluoroscopy: Detecting LLM-Generated Text through Intrinsic Features (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of natural language processing because of their excellent performance on various tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a black-box method with better generalizability for detecting LLM-generated text by mining the intrinsic features of the text to be detected. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves 7.36% and 2.84% improvement in detection performance compared to baselines in detecting texts from different domains generated by GPT-4 and Claude3 respectively. |
Beat LLMs at Their Own Game: Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detection via Querying ChatGPT (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Biru Zhu, Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Chong Fu, Bingxiang He, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Ming Gu
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are capable of performing tasks but are likely to be misused. |
| Approach: | They propose a zero-shot black-box method to detect LLM-generated texts . they revise the text to be detected using the ChatGPT model . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can detect LLM-generated texts with a zero-shot black-box model . it is based on intuition that the model will make fewer revisions to LLMs than to human-written texts . |
Verifiable LLM-Generated Text Detection via Projected Semantic-Structural Distributions (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Ruochong Xiong, Qien Li, Wangwang Lian, Yulong Wan, Hanlin Xue, Zhouxing Tan, Han Yang, Fengyu Lu, Junfei Liu
| Challenge: | Existing methods for detecting LLM-Generated text suffer from distribution misalignment and limited interpretability. |
| Approach: | They propose a statistical framework utilizing supervised subspace learning to extract compact features and construct conditional semantic distributions based on syntactic structures. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework is superior in cross-domain, cross-model, and adversarial scenarios. |
Too Consistent to Detect: A Study of Self-Consistent Errors in LLMs (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Hexiang Tan, Fei Sun, Sha Liu, Du Su, Qi Cao, Xin Chen, Jingang Wang, Xunliang Cai, Yuanzhuo Wang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng
| Challenge: | Existing detection methods fail to account for **self-consistent error** . study identifies self-consistency errors and evaluates them . |
| Approach: | They propose a method that fuses hidden state evidence from an external verifier LLM to detect self-consistent errors. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method significantly enhances performance on self-consistent errors across three LLM families. |
Learning to Rewrite: Generalized LLM-Generated Text Detection (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing detectors for Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to generalize in open-world settings. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to detect LLM-generated text with exceptional generalization to unseen domains by reinforcing LLMs’ inherent rewriting tendencies. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art detection methods by 23.04% in AUROC, 35.10% for out-of distribution tests, and 48.66% under adversarial attacks. |
MOSAIC: Multiple Observers Spotting AI Content (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it easier for all to produce harmful, toxic, faked or forged content. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to automatically discriminate from human-written texts by comparing their probability distributions over a document to see if they can detect forged or harmful content. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach harnesses each model’s capabilities, leading to strong detection performance on a variety of domains. |