Papers with machine-generated text detection
IMGTB: A Framework for Machine-Generated Text Detection Benchmarking (2024.acl-demos)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | MGTD methods are needed in many areas, such as prevention of disinformation spreading, plagiarism, impersonation and identity theft. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for machine-generated text detection that integrates custom methods and evaluation datasets into existing frameworks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework simplifies the benchmarking of machine-generated text detection methods by easy integration of custom (new) methods and evaluation datasets. |
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 . |
MultiSocial: Multilingual Benchmark of Machine-Generated Text Detection of Social-Media Texts (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for detecting social-media texts are limited to the English language and longer texts are not easily recognisable by humans. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a multilingual and multi-platform dataset to compare machine-generated text detection methods in the social-media domain to compare them to human-written texts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset contains 472,097 texts, of which about 58k are human-written and approximately the same amount is generated by each of 7 multilingual LLMs. |
Paraphrasing Attack Resilience of Various Machine-Generated Text Detection Methods (2025.naacl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent large-scale emergence of LLMs has left an open space for dealing with consequences, such as plagiarism or the spread of false information on the Internet. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the parsing attack resilience of three machine-generated text detection methods and their ensembles using Random Forest classifiers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods yield the strongest results, but suffer significant losses during attacks. |
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 . |
k-SemStamp: A Clustering-Based Semantic Watermark for Detection of Machine-Generated Text (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent watermarked generation algorithms inject detectable signatures during language generation to facilitate post-hoc detection. |
| Approach: | They propose a watermark which assigns signatures to each watermarked sentence according to locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) they propose k-SemStamp, which uses kmeans clustering to partition the semantic space with awareness of inherent semantic structure. |
| Outcome: | The proposed watermark improves its robustness and sampling efficiency while preserving the generation quality, making it more effective for machine-generated text detection. |
Identifying Bias in Machine-generated Text Detection (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a growing number of generative AI systems are detecting text generated by a model or written by . humans perform poorly at the detection task, but show no significant biases on the studied attributes. |
| Approach: | They examine gender, race/ethnicity, English-language learner status, and economic status . they find several models tend to classify disadvantaged groups as machine-generated . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models show strong performance but can cause negative impacts . the models classify disadvantaged groups as machine-generated, while economically disadvantaged students' essays are less likely to be classified as machine generated . |
Multi-Loss Fusion: Angular and Contrastive Integration for Machine-Generated Text Detection (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Modern natural language generation systems have led to the development of synthetic human-like open-ended texts, posing concerns as to who the original author of a text is. |
| Approach: | They propose a custom DeBERTa model with angular loss and contrastive loss functions for effective class separation in neural text classification tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on binary machine-generated text detection and multi-class neural authorship attribution tasks on a number of benchmark datasets. |
M-RangeDetector: Enhancing Generalization in Machine-Generated Text Detection through Multi-Range Attention Masks (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing supervised methods for text detection are overfitting within their training domains. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that integrates four distinct attention masking strategies into a Multi-Range Attention module to learn various writing strategies for machine-generated text detection. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves the generalization capability of existing detectors on three datasets. |
On the Risk of Evidence Pollution for Malicious Social Text Detection in the Era of LLMs (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evidence-enhanced detectors are able to detect malicious social text, but they are prone to evidence pollution. |
| Approach: | They propose three defense strategies to mitigate evidence pollution by large language models by machine-generated text detection and a mixture of experts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed defense strategies could mitigate evidence pollution, but they faced limitations for practical employment. |
RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Liam Dugan, Alyssa Hwang, Filip Trhlík, Andrew Zhu, Josh Magnus Ludan, Hainiu Xu, Daphne Ippolito, Chris Callison-Burch
| Challenge: | Existing methods for detecting machine-generated text are often insufficiently robust and lack benchmark datasets. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the out-of-domain and adversarial robustness of 8 open- and 4 closed-source detectors using RAID benchmark datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed detectors are fooled by adversarial attacks, repetition penalties, and unseen generative models. |