Identifying computer-generated text using statistical analysis
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on the Detection and Impacts of Deepfakes in Visual, Audio, and Textual Formats
Mubarak, R., Alsboui, T., Alshaikh, O., Inuwa-Dutse, I., Khan, S., & Parkinson, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3344653 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text
Muñoz-Ortiz, A., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Vilares, D. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges
Huang, B., Chen, C., & Shu, K. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3715073.3715076 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- 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