Ekaterina Artemova, Jason S Lucas, Saranya Venkatraman, Jooyoung Lee, Sergei Tilga, Adaku Uchendu, Vladislav Mikhailov
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for machine-generated texts (MGTs) include single-author texts (human-written and machine-generated). |
| Approach: | They propose to benchmark machine-generated outputs (Beemo) which includes 6.5k texts written by humans, generated by ten instruction-finetuned LLMs, and edited by experts for various use cases. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark includes 6.5k texts written by humans, generated by ten instruction-finetuned LLMs, and edited by experts for various use cases, ranging from creative writing to summarization. |
Similar Papers
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation (2021.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in generative language models have enabled machines to generate realistic texts. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark environment to test the 'Turing Test' problem for neural text generation methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark environment is based on 200K human- or machine-generated samples across 20 labels Human, GPT-1, GTP-2_small, GTT-2_medium, GPG-2_large, GGT-2_PyTorch, GGP-3, GROVER_base, griover_large and GRover_mega. |
Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts Generated by Humans and Large Language Models (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have focused on using LLMs to classify text as either human-written or machine-generated . |
| Approach: | They characterize human-written and machine-generated texts using a set of linguistic features across different linguistic levels such as morphology, syntax, and semantics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model reveals that human-written texts exhibit simpler syntactic structures and more diverse semantic content. |
CoDet-M4: Detecting Machine-Generated Code in Multi-Lingual, Multi-Generator and Multi-Domain Settings (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized code generation but have significant consequences for programming skills, ethics, and assessment integrity. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework capable of distinguishing between human-written and LLM-generated program code across multiple programming languages, code generators, and domains. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework distinguishes between human-written and LLM-generated program code across multiple programming languages, code generators, and domains. |
Exploring the Limitations of Detecting Machine-Generated Text (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in the quality of the generation of text by large language models have spurred research into identifying machine-generated text. |
| Approach: | They audit classification performance for detecting machine-generated text by evaluating on texts with varying writing styles. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods are highly sensitive to stylistic changes and complexity, and in some cases degrade entirely to random classifiers. |
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 . |