Self-Generated Text Recognition: Quality Heuristics, Cross-Task Transfer, and Downstream Bias in LLM Evaluation
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:Self-Generated Text Recognition: Quality Heuristics, Cross-Task Transfer, and Downstream Bias in LLM Evaluation
Abstract:Self-Generated Text Recognition (SGTR)--the ability of an LLM to identify its own outputs--poses risks to AI safeguards that rely on LLMs as evaluators or monitors. Specifically, an LLM may recognize outputs from other copies of the same model and make biased judgments or collude outright. Prior work has drawn conflicting conclusions about whether current models possess significant SGTR capabilities. We reconcile these findings by identifying key experimental design choices--which we term operationalizations--that drive divergent results. Evaluating 13-21 models across six operationalizations, we find that accuracy varies substantially with evaluation format (pairwise vs. individual assessments of text), conversation structure (presenting candidate text in user tags vs. assistant tags), and the domain of the task used to generate candidate text (e.g., coding vs. summarization). We corroborate previous observations that a quality heuristic--models attributing authorship to text they perceive as higher quality--is a dominant confound. We also find that improving a model's SGTR performance via SFT in one evaluation configuration can generalize to others. Training for SGTR additionally causes models to prefer their own outputs when acting as a judge in the AlpacaEval framework. Finally, we discuss the implications of our evaluations for the safety of future AI systems: our work suggests that, despite confounds, some models possess practical SGTR capabilities, and that training a model for SGTR in one setting can affect its self-recognition and self-preference more generally. We conclude that SGTR should be monitored and considered in the design of safety-critical AI applications.
| Comments: | 22 pages, 9 figures (4 main body, 5 appendix), 11 tables (1 main body, 10 appendix) |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.26159 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2608.26159v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26159
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Recipes for Steering and Scaling LLMs via Sampling
Aug 28
-
Can a Model Catch Its Own Hallucinations for Free?: Label-Free Doubt Signals Hold Their Own Against a Labelled Dataset for Abstention
Aug 28
-
FIRSTPASS: A Multi-Domain, Multi-Round Peer Review Dataset Grounded in Real Editorial Outcomes
Aug 28
-
Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.