Cited by 30Authorship Attribution and ProfilingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

Identifying computer-generated text using statistical analysis

Open access
Nguyen-Son, Hoang-Quoc, Tieu, Ngoc-Dung T., Nguyen, Huy H., Yamagishi, Junichi, Zen, Isao Echi·2017·2017 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC)

Abstract

Computer-based automatically generated text is used in various applications (e.g., text summarization, machine translation) and has come to play an important role in daily life. However, computer-generated text may produce confusing information due to translation errors and inappropriate wording caused by faulty language processing, which could be a critical issue in presidential elections and product advertisements. Previous methods for detecting computer-generated text typically estimate text fluency, but this may not be useful in the near future due to the development of neural-network-based natural language generation that produces wording close to human-crafted wording. A different approach to detecting computergenerated text is thus needed. We hypothesize that human-crafted wording is more consistent than that of a computer. For instance, Zipf's law states that the most frequent word in human-written text has approximately twice the frequency of the second most frequent word, nearly three times that of the third most frequent word, and so on. We found that this is not true in the case of computer-generated text. We hence propose a method to identify computer-generated text on the basis of statistics. First, the word distribution frequencies are compared with the corresponding Zipfian distributions to extract the frequency features. Next, complex phrase features are extracted because human-generated text contains more complex phrases than computer-generated text. Finally…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/apsipa.2017.8282270

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen-Son, H.-Q., Tieu, N.-D. T., Nguyen, H. H., Yamagishi, J., & Zen, I. E.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Informatics (JP)
  • The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI (JP)
Venue
2017 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-12
Pages
1504-1511
OpenAlex
W2785674851
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC) (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
machine translation, human-written text, word frequency distribution, Zipf's law, phrasal verbs, coreference resolution, multilingual text detection, Finnish-English translation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review