simonlesaumon commited on
Commit
113229d
Β·
verified Β·
1 Parent(s): d6f8bb4

Upload research/architecture-strategy.md with huggingface_hub

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. research/architecture-strategy.md +176 -0
research/architecture-strategy.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ # DiffusionGemma Humanizer β€” Architecture & Strategy
2
+
3
+ > **Date:** 2026-06-29
4
+ > **Budget:** $250 Modal credits
5
+ > **Target:** GPTZero, GPTDetector, Pangram, Binoculars
6
+ > **Objective:** Fine-tune DiffusionGemma to humanize AI-generated text and evade detection
7
+
8
+ ---
9
+
10
+ ## 1. Why Diffusion Models Beat Detectors (Paper-Backed)
11
+
12
+ ### 1.1 The Theoretical Ceiling (Sadasivan et al., 2023)
13
+
14
+ **Theorem 1** proves mathematically: AUROC ≀ 1/2 + TV(M,H) βˆ’ TV(M,H)Β²/2, where TV(M,H) is the total variation distance between machine and human text distributions. As models improve and TV β†’ 0, every detector converges to random guessing (AUROC β†’ 0.5). This is not a technological limitation β€” it's a mathematical certainty. [arXiv:2303.11156]
15
+
16
+ **Implication:** 0% detection (AUROC = 0.5) is achievable asymptotically. A model that perfectly mimics human text distribution is undetectable by definition. We don't need perfection today β€” we just need TV(M,H) to be lower than what detectors have been trained to distinguish.
17
+
18
+ ### 1.2 Pangram's Blind Spot: No Diffusion Text
19
+
20
+ Pangram's DAMAGE detector (Mistral NeMo 12B + LoRA + linear head) was trained exclusively on autoregressive text: GPT-3.5/4/4o, Claude 2/3, LLaMA 2/3/3.1, Mistral, Gemini Pro/Flash. Their "synthetic mirror prompts" all target instruction-tuned autoregressive models. **Zero diffusion-generated text in their training set.** [arXiv:2501.03437]
21
+
22
+ Key finding from their adversarial attack (Β§7):
23
+ - When they fine-tuned GPT-4o specifically against their detector: TPR dropped from 100% β†’ 93.2%
24
+ - This was with a generic fine-tune API, not a custom architecture
25
+ - A purpose-built diffusion humanizer would exploit a fundamentally different statistical pathway they've never seen
26
+
27
+ ### 1.3 Adversarial Paraphrasing Works (Cheng et al., 2025)
28
+
29
+ The closed-loop optimization is the secret: paraphrasing WITHOUT detector guidance **increases** detection by 8-15%. With detector feedback guiding the paraphrase, TPR drops by **87.88% average**. The innovation is in the feedback loop, not the base model. [arXiv:2506.07001]
30
+
31
+ **Our advantage:** We can embed this feedback loop *inside* the diffusion denoising process, eliminating the need for an external autoregressive LLM that would leave AR-specific traces.
32
+
33
+ ### 1.4 Diffusion Text Naturally Evades AR-Trained Detectors (TarΔ±m & Onan, 2025)
34
+
35
+ LLaDA-generated text "closely mimics human text in perplexity and burstiness, yielding high false-negative rates for AR-oriented detectors." Diffusion models generate through iterative denoising β€” left-to-right token probabilities don't exist, so perplexity-based methods break. [HF Papers:2507.10475]
36
+
37
+ ---
38
+
39
+ ## 2. Architecture Proposal
40
+
41
+ ### 2.1 Base Model: DiffusionGemma 26B
42
+
43
+ | Property | Value |
44
+ |----------|-------|
45
+ | Total params | 25.2B |
46
+ | Active params | 3.8B (MoE, 8/128 experts + 1 shared) |
47
+ | Generation | Discrete diffusion, block-autoregressive, 256-token canvases |
48
+ | Attention | Bidirectional in decoder, cross-attention to AR encoder |
49
+ | Sampling | Entropy-Bounded Denoising, 1–48 steps, temperature 0.8β†’0.4 |
50
+ | License | Apache 2.0 |
51
+ | Release | June 9, 2026 |
52
+
53
+ **Why this model:**
54
+ 1. Generation pathway is fundamentally different from AR models β†’ OOD for all current detectors
55
+ 2. Bidirectional canvas attention enables holistic text understanding for rewriting
56
+ 3. Iterative denoising (1-48 steps) provides a perfect mechanism for progressive humanization
57
+ 4. MoE (3.8B active) makes QLoRA fine-tuning feasible on A100
58
+ 5. 4-bit quantized versions already exist (NVFP4 from NVIDIA, AutoRound from Intel)
59
+
60
+ ### 2.2 Training Strategy
61
+
62
+ **Phase 1: Dataset Construction**
63
+ - Base: HC3 (48.6K ChatGPT-human QA pairs)
64
+ - Augmentation: Synthetic pairs from heuristic humanization (sentence splitting, hedging, register variation)
65
+ - Detector scoring: Each pair annotated with pre/post scores from Fast-DetectGPT, burstiness, heuristics
66
+
67
+ **Phase 2: QLoRA Fine-Tuning**
68
+ - Method: QLoRA, rank 8-16, 4-bit base (NVIDIA NVFP4)
69
+ - Format: Chat template (system: "Rewrite to sound human", user: AI text, assistant: human text)
70
+ - Initial scale: 300-500 pairs, A100 80GB, ~$40
71
+
72
+ **Phase 3: Detector-Guided Refinement**
73
+ - At inference, use entropy-bounded denoising (48 steps max)
74
+ - Apply classifier-free guidance to push logits toward human-like tokens
75
+ - Target inversion of known detector signals:
76
+ - Reduce transition markers (furthermore, however, therefore)
77
+ - Increase sentence length variation
78
+ - Reduce passive voice constructions
79
+ - Increase hapax legomena ratio
80
+
81
+ ### 2.3 Detector Signals to Invert
82
+
83
+ From the literature, detectors (especially Pangram) target:
84
+
85
+ | Signal | AI Text | Human Text | Inversion Strategy |
86
+ |--------|---------|------------|-------------------|
87
+ | Perplexity | Low (<20) | High (>30) | Add "surprising" tokens |
88
+ | Burstiness | Low (<0.15) | High (>0.3) | Vary sentence structure |
89
+ | Transition markers | Many | Few | Replace with informal alternatives |
90
+ | Passive voice | Many | Few | Convert to active voice |
91
+ | Sentence length Οƒ | Low (<5) | High (>10) | Mix short/long sentences |
92
+ | Hapax ratio | Low (<0.40) | High (>0.45) | Use more unique words |
93
+ | Lexical diversity | Moderate | Variable | Match domain-specific patterns |
94
+
95
+ ---
96
+
97
+ ## 3. Cost Breakdown
98
+
99
+ | Step | GPU | Est. Time | Cost |
100
+ |------|-----|----------|------|
101
+ | 1. Model download + baseline gen | A100 | 30 min | $1.25 |
102
+ | 2. Detector tests | A100 | 20 min | $0.85 |
103
+ | 3. Dataset construction | CPU (within A100) | 10 min | $0 |
104
+ | 4. QLoRA fine-tuning (300 pairs) | A100 | 1-2h | $5-10 |
105
+ | 5. Evaluation (5 prompts) | A100 | 15 min | $0.60 |
106
+ | 6. Export to HF | CPU | 5 min | $0 |
107
+ | **Total per run** | | **~3h** | **~$8-13** |
108
+ | **Available runs ($250)** | | | **19-31 experiments** |
109
+
110
+ Each experiment can vary: dataset size, LoRA rank, learning rate, prompt template, training epochs.
111
+
112
+ ---
113
+
114
+ ## 4. Expected Results (Hypothesis)
115
+
116
+ Based on cross-referencing all papers:
117
+
118
+ | Detector | Baseline (DiffusionGemma raw) | Fine-tuned Humanizer |
119
+ |----------|------------------------------|---------------------|
120
+ | GPTZero | 60-80% evasion (diffusion confuses perplexity) | 95%+ evasion |
121
+ | Binoculars | 50-70% evasion (cross-perplexity mismatch) | 90%+ evasion |
122
+ | Fast-DetectGPT | 40-60% evasion (curvature is AR-specific) | 85%+ evasion |
123
+ | Pangram | 30-50% evasion (untrained on diffusion) | 70-85% evasion initially |
124
+
125
+ Pangram will be the hardest because their deep classifier learns nuanced style patterns. But being completely OOD (out-of-distribution) for their training set gives a significant initial advantage. The window of high evasion will close once Pangram adds diffusion text to their training pipeline β€” estimated 1-3 months after public release.
126
+
127
+ ---
128
+
129
+ ## 5. Security: HF Token Setup
130
+
131
+ ### Required Permissions
132
+
133
+ 1. **Read token**: Download models (DiffusionGemma, GPT-2 for detectors)
134
+ 2. **Write token**: Upload to `simonlesaumon/diffusiongemma-humanizer`
135
+
136
+ ### Setup on Modal (nothing stored locally)
137
+
138
+ ```powershell
139
+ # Create Modal secret (tokens stay encrypted on Modal, never on your PC)
140
+ modal secret create hf-secrets HF_TOKEN=hf_your_token_here
141
+ ```
142
+
143
+ Then the app reads from `os.environ["HF_TOKEN"]` automatically.
144
+ Create your token at: https://huggingface.co/settings/tokens (needs "Write" permission)
145
+
146
+ ---
147
+
148
+ ## 6. File Structure
149
+
150
+ ```
151
+ Deepseek_SOTA/
152
+ β”œβ”€β”€ modal_project/
153
+ β”‚ └── app.py # Full Modal pipeline
154
+ β”œβ”€β”€ scripts/
155
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ run_pipeline.ps1 # PowerShell launcher
156
+ β”‚ └── run.py # Python launcher
157
+ β”œβ”€β”€ research/
158
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ technical-diffusion-text-humanization-2026-06-29.md # Research report
159
+ β”‚ └── architecture-strategy.md # This file
160
+ └── .gitignore
161
+ ```
162
+
163
+ **Everything runs on Modal. Nothing downloaded locally except the scripts.**
164
+
165
+ ---
166
+
167
+ ## 7. References
168
+
169
+ 1. Sadasivan et al. (2023) β€” *Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?* [arXiv:2303.11156]
170
+ 2. Masrour, Emi & Spero (2025) β€” *DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Text* [arXiv:2501.03437]
171
+ 3. Cheng et al. (2025) β€” *Adversarial Paraphrasing: A Universal Attack for Humanizing AI-Generated Text* [arXiv:2506.07001]
172
+ 4. TarΔ±m & Onan (2025) β€” *Can You Detect the Difference? Diffusion vs AR Text* [HF:2507.10475]
173
+ 5. Ranganath & Ramesh (2026) β€” *StealthRL: RL Paraphrase Attacks for Multi-Detector Evasion* [arXiv:2602.08934]
174
+ 6. Xu et al. (2026) β€” *Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors* [arXiv:2605.19516]
175
+ 7. Schiff et al. (2024) β€” *Simple Guidance Mechanisms for Discrete Diffusion Models* [arXiv:2412.10193]
176
+ 8. DiffusionGemma β€” [Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/google/diffusiongemma-26B-A4B-it)