To prevent misinformation and social issues arising from trustworthy-looking content generated by LLMs, it is crucial to develop efficient and reliable methods for identifying the source of texts. Previous approaches have demonstrated exceptional performance in detecting texts fully generated by LLMs. However, these methods struggle when confronting more advanced LLM output or text with adversarial multi-task machine revision, especially in the black-box setting, where the generating model is unknown. To address this challenge, grounded in the hypothesis that human writing possesses distinctive stylistic patterns, we propose Human Language Preference Detection (HLPD). HLPD employs a reward-based alignment process, Human Language Preference Optimization (HLPO), to shift the scoring model's token distribution toward human-like writing, making the model more sensitive to human writing, therefore enhancing the identification of machine-revised text. We test HLPD in an adversarial multi-task evaluation framework that leverages a five-dimensional prompt generator and multiple advanced LLMs to create diverse revision scenarios. When detecting texts revised by GPT-series models, HLPD achieves a 15.11% relative improvement in AUROC over ImBD, surpassing Fast-DetectGPT by 45.56%. When evaluated on texts generated by advanced LLMs, HLPD achieves the highest average AUROC, exceeding ImBD by 5.53% and Fast-DetectGPT by 34.14%. Code will be made available at https://github.com/dfq2021/HLPD.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized text generation, making detecting machine-generated text increasingly challenging. Although past methods have achieved good performance on detecting pure machine-generated text, those detectors have poor performance on distinguishing machine-revised text (rewriting, expansion, and polishing), which can have only minor changes from its original human prompt. As the content of text may originate from human prompts, detecting machine-revised text often involves identifying distinctive machine styles, e.g., worded favored by LLMs. However, existing methods struggle to detect machine-style phrasing hidden within the content contributed by humans. We propose the "Imitate Before Detect" (ImBD) approach, which first imitates the machine-style token distribution, and then compares the distribution of the text to be tested with the machine-style distribution to determine whether the text has been machine-revised. To this end, we introduce style preference optimization (SPO), which aligns a scoring LLM model to the preference of text styles generated by machines. The aligned scoring model is then used to calculate the style-conditional probability curvature (Style-CPC), quantifying the log probability difference between the original and conditionally sampled texts for effective detection. We conduct extensive comparisons across various scenarios, encompassing text revisions by six LLMs, four distinct text domains, and three machine revision types. Compared to existing state-of-the-art methods, our method yields a 13% increase in AUC for detecting text revised by open-source LLMs, and improves performance by 5% and 19% for detecting GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o revised text, respectively. Notably, our method surpasses the commercially trained GPT-Zero with just $1,000$ samples and five minutes of SPO, demonstrating its efficiency and effectiveness.

The robustness of AI-content detection models against sophisticated adversarial strategies, such as paraphrasing or word switching, is a rising concern in natural language generation (NLG) applications. This study proposes ToBlend, a novel token-level ensemble text generation method to challenge the robustness of current AI-content detection approaches by utilizing multiple sets of candidate generative large language models (LLMs). By randomly sampling token(s) from candidate LLMs sets, we find ToBlend significantly drops the performance of most mainstream AI-content detection methods. We evaluate the text quality produced under different ToBlend settings based on annotations from experienced human experts. We proposed a fine-tuned Llama3.1 model to distinguish the ToBlend generated text more accurately. Our findings underscore our proposed text generation approach's great potential in deceiving and improving detection models. Our datasets, codes, and annotations are open-sourced.

We present our approach, Collision Avoidance Detour (CAD), which won the 3rd place award in the 2023 Waymo Open Dataset Challenge - Sim Agents, held at the 2023 CVPR Workshop on Autonomous Driving. To satisfy the motion prediction factorization requirement, we partition all the valid objects into three mutually exclusive sets: Autonomous Driving Vehicle (ADV), World-tracks-to-predict, and World-others. We use different motion models to forecast their future trajectories independently. Furthermore, we also apply collision avoidance detour resampling, additive Gaussian noise, and velocity-based heading estimation to improve the realism of our simulation result.

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: ``no cutting in line.'' We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard ``dual process'' theories of moral judgment.