Cited by 84Academic integrity and plagiarismAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingArtificial Intelligence in Education

Detecting LLM-Generated Text in Computing Education: Comparative Study for ChatGPT Cases

Orenstrakh, Michael Sheinman, Karnalim, Oscar, Suárez, Carlos Aníbal, Liut, Michael·2024·2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)

Abstract

Due to the recent improvements and wide availability of Large Language Models (LLMs), they have posed a serious threat to academic integrity in education. Modern LLM-generated text detectors attempt to combat the problem by offering educators with services to assess whether some text is LLM-generated. In this work, we have collected 124 submissions from computer science students before the creation of ChatGPT. We then generated 40 ChatGPT submissions. We used this data to evaluate eight publicly-available LLM-generated text detectors through the measures of accuracy, false positives, and resilience. Our results find that Copy Leaks is the most accurate LLM-generated text detector, G PTKit is the best LLM-generated text detector to reduce false positives, and GLTR is the most resilient LLM-generated text detector. We note that all LLM-generated text detectors are less accurate with code, other languages (aside from English), and after the use of paraphrasing tools.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/compsac61105.2024.00027

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A number of studies investigated the effectiveness of AI tools in producing solutions that could bypass detection tools.

    “A number of studies investigated the effectiveness of AI tools in producing solutions that could bypass detection tools (e.g., [49, 104, 256, 267, 303, 354]).”
  • Orenstrakh et al. conclude that while detectors achieve reasonable accuracy, they are still prone to flaws and are not yet suitable for dealing with academic integrity.

    “The authors conclude: that while detectors manage to achieve a reasonable accuracy, they are still prone to flaws and can be challenging to interpret and that they are not yet suitable for dealing with academic integrity.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Orenstrakh, M. S., Karnalim, O., Suárez, C. A., & Liut, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Maranatha Christian University (ID)
  • Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral (EC)
Venue
2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2024-07-02
Pages
121-126
ISSN
0730-3157 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401880391
Cited by
79
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 9
FWCI
31.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
LLM-generated text detection, ChatGPT, large language models, academic integrity, computing education, code generation, plagiarism detection, false positives

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