Breaking the Generator Barrier: Disentangled Representation for Generalizable AI-Text Detection
Organizations: Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China
Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) generate text that increasingly resembles human writing, the subtle cues that distinguish AI-generated content from human-written content become increasingly challenging to capture. Reliance on generator-specific artifacts is inherently unstable, since new models emerge rapidly and reduce the robustness of such shortcuts. This generalizes unseen generators as a central and challenging problem for AI-text detection. To tackle this challenge, we propose a progressively structured framework that disentangles AI-detection semantics from generator-aware artifacts. This is achieved through a compact latent encoding that encourages semantic minimality, followed by perturbation-based regularization to reduce residual entanglement, and finally a discriminative adaptation stage that aligns representations with task objectives. Experiments on MAGE benchmark, covering 20 representative LLMs across 7 categories, demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art methods, achieving up to 24.2% accuracy gain and 26.2% F1 improvement. Notably, performance continues to improve as the diversity of training generators increases, confirming strong scalability and generalization in open-set scenarios. Our source code will be publicly available at https://github.com/PuXiao06/DRGD.
Figures & tables
| Categories | MAGE Corpus Li et al. (2024) | ||||||
| FLAN-T5 | GPT | LLaMA | OPT | GLM | BigScience | EleutherAI | |
| LLMs included | small/base/large xl/xxl | davinci-002/003 gpt-turbo-3.5 | 6B/13B 30B/65B | 2.7B/6.7B iml-1.3B/30B | 130B | Bloom-7B | GPT-J-6B GPT-NeoX-20B |
| AI | 9,000 | 13,800 | 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,100 | 8,900 | 9,000 |
| Human | 9,000 | 13,800 | 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,100 | 8,900 | 9,000 |
| Algorithm 1: Structured Disentanglement Framework | |
| Input: encoder , bottleneck encoders , , discriminators , , weight factor , training set | |
| Output: optimized encoders and discriminators | |
| 1 | for each training epoch do |
| 2 | for each mini-batch do |
| 3 | Stage I: Encoding and Regularization |
| 4 | |
| Accuracy (%) / -Measure | |||||||
| LLM Categories | FLAN-T5 | GPT | LLaMA | OPT | GLM | BigScience | EleutherAI |
| Zero-shot methods | |||||||
| 56.9 / 52.4 | 71.8 / 71.5 | 75.1 / 75.8 | 75.1 / 77.3 | 77.8 / 78.2 | 86.6 / 86.4 | 80.2 / 80.0 | |
| 57.3 / 74.9 | 70.0 / 82.5 | 73.4 / 79.8 | 74.6 / 76.1 | 69.9 / 72.8 | 79.3 / 84.2 | 77.0 / 82.9 | |
| 58.6 / 76.3 | 72.1 / 84.4 | 75.9 / 81.5 | 77.4 / 78.3 | 74.7 / 75.2 | 86.2 / 86.5 | 83.7 / 84.4 | |
| Training-based methods | |||||||
| Model | Accuracy (%) / -Measure | |||
| OPT Test | ||||
| BERT | 72.8/72.2 | 73.1/69.9 | 76.7/74.9 | 78.1/76.1 |
| 69.4/67.7 | 68.4/69.8 | 70.1/68.1 | 68.4/68.1 | |
| PECOLA | 70.1/68.1 | 76.8/75.5 | 80.5/80.0 | 81.1/80.9 |
| SCRN | 69.2/68.3 | 70.7/67.4 | 72.5/69.9 | 76.1/75.9 |
| Word-level Perturbations | |||
| Metric | Accuracy (%) / -Measure | ||
| Model | BERT | SCRN | Ours |
| Original | 82.1 / 84.2 | 81.3 / 79.2 | 89.1 / 88.3 |
| Delete | 68.8 / 72.6 | 67.6 / 64.9 | 80.0 / 79.9 |
| Swap | 66.9 / 64.2 | 62.6 / 59.9 | 66.5 / 69.9 |
| Insert | 66.9 / 65.1 | 62.6 / 60.9 | 67.5 / 70.6 |
| Components | Accuracy (%) / -Measure | |||||
| BERT | Disen. | DB | Regular. | Adapt. | FLAN-T5 | OPT |
| ✓ | 60.9 / 52.6 | 82.1 / 84.2 | ||||
| ✓ | ✓ | 62.0 / 53.3 | 83.7 / 83.5 | |||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 65.2 / 60.2 | 87.1 / 86.0 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 66.8 / 63.8 | 88.3 / 87.4 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 68.9 / 64.1 | 89.1 / 88.3 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Accuracy (%) / -Measure | |||||||
| LLM Categories | FLAN-T5 | GPT | LLaMA | OPT | GLM | BigScience | EleutherAI |
| 70.5 / 66.5 | 83.9 / 82.7 | 87.4 / 88.5 | 86.5 / 87.3 | 93.1 / 93.9 | 98.1 / 97.3 | 98.0 / 97.1 | |
| 75.5 / 75.8 | 85.6 / 85.1 | 88.9 / 88.7 | 88.5 / 88.3 | 80.9 / 80.2 | 90.4 / 89.6 | 86.7 / 87.4 | |
| 69.1 / 68.5 | 74.6 / 73.7 | 79.7 / 78.3 | 85.6 / 83.9 | 73.4 / 70.2 | 89.5 / 89.1 | 92.1 / 91.8 | |
| Ours | 77.4 / 77.1 | 86.9 / 87.4 | 91.7 / 90.1 | 93.8 / 92.4 | 95.7 / 94.6 | 98.7 / 96.1 | 98.3 / 98.9 |
| Metric | Accuracy (%) / -Measure | ||
| Model | BERT | SCRN | Ours |
| GPT-4 | 52.8 / 51.0 | 51.6 / 50.9 | 61.8 / 65.4 |
| GPT-5 | 61.0 / 61.6 | 53.8 / 52.2 | 68.7 / 70.1 |
| Claude-sonnet-4-5 | 51.6 / 56.6 | 52.9 / 52.1 | 57.1 / 60.5 |
| DeepSeek-R1 | 63.3 / 69.7 | 55.4 / 53.2 | 71.0 / 69.8 |
| Section | Train | Test |
| 4.2.1 Main Results (Table 2 ) | Leave-One-Generator-Out | |
| 4.2.2 Diversity (Table 3 ) | BigScience GPT LLaMA GLM EleutherAI | OPT FLAN-T5 |
| 4.3 Progress Gen. (Fig. 3 ) | BigScience GPT | FLAN-T5 |
| 4.4.1 Bias Filter (Fig. 4 ) A.5 Bias Filter (Fig. 8 ) | BigScience GPT FLAN-T5 | - |
| 4.4.2 Robustness (Fig. 5 ) | BigScience GPT | - |
| 4.4.3 Compactness (Fig. 6 ) | GPT | - |
AI-Generated Text Detection
AI-generated text detection develops methods to distinguish human-written, machine-generated, and AI-edited text.
See all 167 papers