Can AI-Generated Text Be Reliably Detected? Stress Testing AI Text Detectors Under Various Attacks

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform impressively well in various applications, such as document completion and question-answering. However, the potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concerns about their responsible use. Consequently, the reliable detection of AI-generated text has become a critical area of research. Recent works have attempted to address this challenge through various methods, including the identification of model signatures in generated text outputs and the application of watermarking techniques to detect AI-generated text. These detectors have shown to be effective under their specific settings. In this paper, we stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker. We introduce recursive paraphrasing attack to stress test a wide range of detection schemes, including the ones using the watermarking as well as neural network-based detectors, zero-shot classifiers, and retrieval-based detectors. Our experiments conducted on passages, each approximately 300 tokens long, reveal the varying sensitivities of these detectors to our attacks. We also observe that these paraphrasing attacks add slight degradation to the text quality. We analyze the trade-offs between our attack strength and the resulting text quality, measured through human studies, perplexity scores, and accuracy on text benchmarks. Our findings indicate that while our recursive paraphrasing method can significantly reduce detection rates, it only slightly degrades text quality in many cases, highlighting potential vulnerabilities in current detection systems in the presence of an attacker. Additionally, we investigate the susceptibility of watermarked LLMs to spoofing attacks aimed at misclassifying human-written text as AI-generated. We demonstrate that an attacker can infer hidden AI text signatures without white-box access to the detection method, potentially leading to reputational risks for LLM developers. Finally, we provide a theoretical framework connecting the AUROC of the best possible detector to the Total Variation distance between human and AI text distributions. This analysis offers insights into the fundamental challenges of reliable detection as language models continue to advance.

Cite

Text

Sadasivan et al. "Can AI-Generated Text Be Reliably Detected? Stress Testing AI Text Detectors Under Various Attacks." Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025.

Markdown

[Sadasivan et al. "Can AI-Generated Text Be Reliably Detected? Stress Testing AI Text Detectors Under Various Attacks." Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025.](https://mlanthology.org/tmlr/2025/sadasivan2025tmlr-aigenerated/)

BibTeX

@article{sadasivan2025tmlr-aigenerated,
  title     = {{Can AI-Generated Text Be Reliably Detected? Stress Testing AI Text Detectors Under Various Attacks}},
  author    = {Sadasivan, Vinu Sankar and Kumar, Aounon and Balasubramanian, Sriram and Wang, Wenxiao and Feizi, Soheil},
  journal   = {Transactions on Machine Learning Research},
  year      = {2025},
  url       = {https://mlanthology.org/tmlr/2025/sadasivan2025tmlr-aigenerated/}
}