The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Open accessAbstract
Recent advancements in neural language modelling make it possible to rapidly generate vast amounts of human-sounding text.The capabilities of humans and automatic discriminators to detect machine-generated text have been a large source of research interest, but humans and machines rely on different cues to make their decisions.Here, we perform careful benchmarking and analysis of three popular sampling-based decoding strategies-topk, nucleus sampling, and untruncated random sampling-and show that improvements in decoding methods have primarily optimized for fooling humans.This comes at the expense of introducing statistical abnormalities that make detection easy for automatic systems.We also show that though both human and automatic detector performance improve with longer excerpt length, even multi-sentence excerpts can fool expert human raters over 30% of the time.Our findings reveal the importance of using both human and automatic detectors to assess the humanness of text generation systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs typically exhibit less diversity in word usage compared to humans [Ippolito et al., 2020;Dugan et al., 2023].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Pre-trained language models (PTMs), especially BERT-based architectures [Devlin et al., 2019] such as BERT [Ippolito et al., 2020;Fabien et al., 2020;Manolache et al., 2021], Sentence-BERT [Schlicht and de Paula, 2021;Rivera-Soto et al., 2021], and RoBERTa [Huertas-Tato et al., 2022], have proven effective for learning authorship representation.”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, neural networkbased models such as BERT [Ippolito et al., 2020], Radar [Hu et al., 2023], and GPT-sentinel [Chen et al., 2023a] can also be applied.”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, exposing evaluators to examples before evaluation enhances their detection capabilities, especially with longer samples.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al. 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Neural network-based detectors, particularly those utilizing BERT, have proven effective in distinguishing between human-written texts and those generated by GPT-2 [Ippolito et al., 2020;Liu et al., 2019].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast, detection algorithms frequently outperform the human in this task [Ippolito et al., 2020].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing detectors also lack robustness to various factors, such as alternative decoding strategies [Ippolito et al., 2020], input sequence length [Solaiman et al., 2019], different prompts [Kumarage et al., 2023;Lu et al., 2023], and repetition penalties [Fishchuk and Braun, 2023].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent studies (Ippolito et al. 2020) indicated that human evaluators might not be as proficient as detection algorithms in recognizing LLM-generated text across various settings.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al. 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Ippolito et al. (2020) suggested that text perceived as high quality by humans tends to be more easily recognizable by detectors.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al. 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 2×
“It propogates quickly (Vosoughi et al., 2018), sets political agendas”
BackgroundSocial Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation
Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.08144 · Cited by 5,319
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865
Hierarchical Neural Story Generation
Fan, A., Lewis, M., & Dauphin, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1082 · Cited by 1,266
Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud
Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2304 · Cited by 1,263
Hierarchical Neural Story Generation
Fan, A., Lewis, M., & Dauphin, Y. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.04833 · Cited by 1,242
Adversarial Learning for Neural Dialogue Generation
Li, J., Monroe, W., Shi, T., Jean, S., Ritter, A., & Jurafsky, D. (2017) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1230 · Cited by 955
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Timothy Niven and Hung-Yu Kao. 2019. Probing neu- ral network comprehension of natural language ar- guments. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 4658-4664, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715- 1725.
- Alan Turing. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence-am turing. Mind, 59(236):433.
- Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Defending against neural fake news. CoRR, abs/1905.12616. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839
Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models
Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07805 · Cited by 727
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569
Self-citationTesting of detection tools for AI-generated text
Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z · Cited by 582
Can Generative AI improve social science?
Bail, C. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2314021121 · Cited by 369
Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed
Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2208839120 · Cited by 342
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335
All That’s ‘Human’ Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.565 · Cited by 290
All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.00061 · Cited by 290
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Cited by 234
A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions
Wu, J., Yang, S., Zhan, R., Yuan, Y., Chao, L. S., & Wong, D. F. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00549 · Cited by 212
Machine-Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods
Crothers, E. N., Japkowicz, N., & Viktor, H. L. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294090 · Cited by 196
TweepFake: about detecting deepfake tweets
Fagni, T., Falchi, F., Gambini, M., Martella, A., & Tesconi, M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251415 · Cited by 185
Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11156 · Cited by 810
“Non-watermarking detectors such as trained classifiers [3], retrieval-based detectors [4], and zero-shot classifiers [2, 24, 23, 22] use the presence of LLM-specific signatures in AI-generated texts for their detection.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAutomatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey
Jawahar, G., Abdul-Mageed, M., & Lakshmanan, V. S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.208 · Cited by 156
DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature
Mitchell, E., Lee, Y., Khazatsky, A., Manning, C. D., & Finn, C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11305 · Cited by 151
Large language models: a survey of their development, capabilities, and applications
Yadagiri, A., & Pakray, P. (2024) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-024-02310-4 · Cited by 155
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
ChatGPT for Cybersecurity: Practical Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions
Al-Hawawreh, M., Aljuhani, A., & Jararweh, Y. (2023) · Cluster Computing · doi:10.1007/s10586-023-04124-5 · Cited by 124
Repairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Clark, E., & Sellam, T. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13715 · Cited by 123
Simple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: implications for inclusive education
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Vu, B. H., Postma, D., Hickerson, D., McGaughran, J., & Khuat, H. Q. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00487-w · Cited by 117
Rethinking search: making domain experts out of dilettantes
Metzler, D., Tay, Y., Bahri, D., & Najork, M. (2021) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/3476415.3476428 · Cited by 112
Feature-based detection of automated language models: tackling GPT-2, GPT-3 and Grover
Fröhling, L., & Zubiaga, A. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.443 · Cited by 106
Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Survey
Chang, T. A., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00492 · Cited by 105
Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hiding
Abdelnabi, S., & Fritz, M. (2021) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp40001.2021.00083 · Cited by 121
DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text
Su, J., Zhuo, T. Y., Wang, D., & Nakov, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.827 · Cited by 192
MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection
He, X., Shen, X., Chen, Z., Michael Backes, A., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670344 · Cited by 142
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
TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation
Uchendu, A., Ma, Z., Le, T., Zhang, R., & Lee, D. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.172 · Cited by 82
Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8 · Cited by 80
Shaaban, O. A., Yıldırım, R., & Alguttar, A. A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3333866 · Cited by 87
Detecting computer-generated disinformation
Stiff, H., & Johansson, F. (2022) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-021-00299-5 · Cited by 79
Embracing ChatGPT: Implications of Emergent Language Models for Academia and Libraries
Houston, A. B., & Corrado, E. M. (2023) · Technical Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07317131.2023.2187110 · Cited by 77
Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07183 · Cited by 73
“…risks associated with AI-generated content has sparked a debate about their effectiveness and reliability (OpenAI, 2019; Jawahar et al., 2020; Fagni et al., 2021; Ippolito et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2023b; Gehrmann et al., 2019; Heikkil ¨ a, 2022; Crothers et al., 2022; Solaiman et al., 2019a).”
Ibrahim, K. (2023) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-023-00260-2 · Cited by 66
Fighting Fire with Fire: Can ChatGPT Detect AI-generated Text?
Bhattacharjee, A., & Liu, H. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3655103.3655106 · Cited by 65
CHEAT: A Large-Scale Dataset for Detecting CHatGPT-writtEn AbsTracts
Yu, P., Chen, J., Feng, X., & Xia, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2025.3536929 · Cited by 90
Can Generative AI Improve Social Science?
Bail, C. A. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/rwtzs · Cited by 369
Liu, Z. Q., Yao, Z., Li, F., & Luo, B. (2024) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670392 · Cited by 80
Deepfake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportunities
Pu, J., Sarwar, Z., Abdullah, S. M., Rehman, A., Kim, Y., Bhattacharya, P., Javed, M., & Viswanath, B. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179387 · Cited by 75
Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI
Barrett, C., Boyd, B., Bursztein, E., Carlini, N., Chen, B., Choi, J., Chowdhury, A. R., Christodorescu, M., Datta, A., Feizi, S., et al. (2023) · Foundations and Trends® in Privacy and Security · doi:10.1561/3300000041 · Cited by 57
The Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generation
Karpinska, M., Akoury, N., & Iyyer, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.97 · Cited by 56
Sadiq, S., Aljrees, T., & Ullah, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3308515 · Cited by 64
Koike, R., Kaneko, M., & Okazaki, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30120 · Cited by 77
Accessible Cultural Heritage through Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Pisoni, G. (2020) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3386392.3399276 · Cited by 55
Dugan, L., Ippolito, D., Kirubarajan, A., Shi, S., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26501 · Cited by 54
Self-citationNeural Deepfake Detection with Factual Structure of Text
Zhong, W., Tang, D., Xu, Z., Wang, R., Duan, N., Zhou, M., Wang, J., & Yin, J. P. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.193 · Cited by 73
An Overview of Language Models: Recent Developments and Outlook
Wei, C., Wang, Y.-C., Wang, B., & Kuo, C. ‐. J. (2024) · APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing · doi:10.1561/116.00000010 · Cited by 74
SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection
Wang, P., Li, L., Ren, K., Jiang, B., Zhang, D., & Qiu, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.73 · Cited by 53
Bob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment
Richards, M., Waugh, K., Slaymaker, M., Petre, M., Woodthorpe, J., & Gooch, D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3633287 · Cited by 52
Do Language Models Plagiarize?
Lee, J., Le, T., Chen, J., & Lee, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 · doi:10.1145/3543507.3583199 · Cited by 51
Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language GenerationPreprint
Zhang, H., Duckworth, D., Ippolito, D., & Neelakantan, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.10450 · Cited by 68
Self-citationRAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors
Dugan, L., Hwang, A., Trhlík, F., Zhu, A., Ludan, J. M., Xu, H., Ippolito, D., & Callison-Burch, C. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.674 · Cited by 48
Self-citationShah, A., Ranka, P., Dedhia, U., Prasad, S., Muni, S., & Bhowmick, K. (2023) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2023.01410110 · Cited by 47
A Comparison of DeepSeek and other LLMs
Gao, T., Jin, J., Ke, Z. T., & Moryoussef, G. (2026) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2025.2611010 · Cited by 67
Kovács, B. (2024) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-024-09729-3 · Cited by 44
Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Pu, H., Lan, Y., & Shen, C. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1005 · Cited by 67
ConDA: Contrastive Domain Adaptation for AI-generated Text Detection
Bhattacharjee, A., Kumarage, T., Moraffah, R., & Liu, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 · Cited by 43
A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content
Yang, X., Pan, L., Zhao, X., Chen, H., Petzold, L. R., Wang, W. Y., & Cheng, W. D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.572 · Cited by 76
RoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Text
Dugan, L. D., Ippolito, D., Kirubarajan, A., & Callison-Burch, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.25 · Cited by 51
Self-citationCross-domain detection of GPT-2-generated technical text
Rodriguez, J., Hay, T., Gros, D., Shamsi, Z., & Srinivasan, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.88 · Cited by 40
Three Bricks to Consolidate Watermarks for Large Language Models
Fernandez, P., Chaffin, A., Tit, K., Chappelier, V., & Furon, T. (2023) · IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/wifs58808.2023.10374576 · Cited by 63
Language Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey
Kumar, S., Balachandran, V., Njoo, L., Anastasopoulos, A., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.241 · Cited by 38
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
“For instance, Kowalczyk et al. (2022) detected GPT-2-generated fake reviews using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) (Lundberg and Lee, 2017).”
InfluentialChein, J., Martinez, S., & Barone, A. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4277893/v1 · Cited by 38
Chein, J. M., Martinez, S. A., & Barone, A. R. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76218-y · Cited by 38
Madani, M., Motameni, H., & Roshani, R. (2023) · International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · doi:10.1142/s0219622023500347 · Cited by 38
Hanley, H. W. A., & Durumeric, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31333 · Cited by 36
How Large Language Models are Transforming Machine-Paraphrase Plagiarism
Wahle, J. P., Ruas, T., Kirstein, F., & Gipp, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.62 · Cited by 35
Does Human Collaboration Enhance the Accuracy of Identifying LLM-Generated Deepfake Texts?
Uchendu, A., Lee, J., Shen, H., Le, T., Huang, T.-H., & Lee, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v11i1.27557 · Cited by 40
Frustratingly Easy Edit-based Linguistic Steganography with a Masked Language Model
Ueoka, H., Murawaki, Y., & Kurohashi, S. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.433 · Cited by 35
Artificial Text Detection via Examining the Topology of Attention Maps
Kushnareva, L., Cherniavskii, D., Mikhailov, V., Artemova, E., Barannikov, S., Bernstein, A., Piontkovskaya, I., Piontkovski, D., & Burnaev, E. V. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.50 · Cited by 50
Adversarial Semantic Collisions
Song, C., Rush, A. M., & Shmatikov, V. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.344 · Cited by 42
Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspective
Uchendu, A., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2023) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3606274.3606276 · Cited by 44
Mirostat: A Neural Text Decoding Algorithm that Directly Controls PerplexityPreprint
Basu, S., Ramachandran, G. S., Keskar, N. S., & Varshney, L. R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.14966 · Cited by 63
Neural Language Generation: Formulation, Methods, and EvaluationPreprint
Gârbacea, C., & Mei, Q. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.15780 · Cited by 45
Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothing
Hewitt, J., Manning, C. D., & Liang, P. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.249 · Cited by 70
A Comprehensive Survey of Fake Text Detection on Misinformation and LM-Generated Texts
Kwon, S.-C., & Jang, B. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3538805 · Cited by 30
Preventing and Detecting Misinformation Generated by Large Language Models
Liu, A., Sheng, Q., & Hu, X. (2024) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3626772.3661377 · Cited by 27
Detection of AI-Generated Texts: A Bi-LSTM and Attention-Based Approach
Blake, J., Miah, A. S. M., Kredens, K., & Shin, J. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3562750 · Cited by 30
Synthetic Disinformation Attacks on Automated Fact Verification Systems
Du, Y., Bosselut, A., & Manning, C. D. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21302 · Cited by 34
Tactics, Threats & Targets: Modeling Disinformation and its Mitigation
Mirza, S., Begum, L., Niu, L., Pardo, S., Abouzied, A., Papotti, P., & Pöpper, C. (2023) · Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2023.23657 · Cited by 30
Unsupervised and Distributional Detection of Machine-Generated TextPreprint
Gallé, M., Rozen, J., Kruszewski, G., & Elsahar, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02878 · Cited by 42
Enhancing Machine-Generated Text Detection: Adversarial Fine-Tuning of Pre-Trained Language Models
Lee, D., & Jang, B. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3396820 · Cited by 27
Can Machines Tell Stories? A Comparative Study of Deep Neural Language Models and Metrics
Das, A., & Verma, R. M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3023421 · Cited by 29
Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Education
Zeng, Z., Sha, L., Li, Y., Yang, K., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i20.30258 · Cited by 28
A Systematic Characterization of Sampling Algorithms for Open-ended Language Generation
Nadeem, M., He, T., Cho, K., & Glass, J. R. (2020) · Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (AACL-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.aacl-main.36 · Cited by 32
Between Lines of Code: Unraveling the Distinct Patterns of Machine and Human Programmers
Shi, Y., Zhang, H., Wan, C., & Gu, X. (2025) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00005 · Cited by 38
Detection of Fake Generated Scientific Abstracts
Theocharopoulos, P. C., Anagnostou, P., Tsoukala, A., Georgakopoulos, S. V., Tasoulis, S. K., & Plagianakos, V. P. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications (BigDataService) · doi:10.1109/bigdataservice58306.2023.00011 · Cited by 27
MARKMyWORDS: Analyzing and Evaluating Language Model Watermarks
Piet, J., Sitawarin, C., Fang, V., Mu, N., & Wagner, D. (2025) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml64287.2025.00012 · Cited by 65
Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russian
Shamardina, T., Mikhailov, V., Chernianskii, D., Fenogenova, A., Saidov, M., Valeeva, A., Shavrina, T., Smurov, I., Tutubalina, E. V., & Artemova, E. (2022) · Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies · doi:10.28995/2075-7182-2022-21-497-511 · Cited by 34
Residual Energy-Based Models for TextPreprint
Bakhtin, A., Deng, Y., Gross, S., Ott, M., Ranzato, M., & Szlam, A. D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.10188 · Cited by 22
The “Code” of Ethics: A Holistic Audit of AI Code Generators
Ma, W., Song, Y., Xue, M., Wen, S., & Xiang, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2024.3367737 · Cited by 25
How Does the Disclosure of AI Assistance Affect the Perceptions of Writing?
Li, Z., Liang, C., Peng, J., & Yin, M. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.279 · Cited by 21
Reverse Engineering Configurations of Neural Text Generation Models
Tay, Y., Bahri, D., Zheng, C., Brunk, C. A., Metzler, D., & Tomkins, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.25 · Cited by 31
AI-generated text detection: A comprehensive review of methods, datasets, and applications
Kehkashan, T., Riaz, R. A., Al‐Shamayleh, A. S., Akhunzada, A., Ali, N., Hamza, M., & Akbar, F. (2025) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100793 · Cited by 24
Few-shot Controllable Style Transfer for Low-Resource Multilingual Settings
Krishna, K., Nathani, D., Garcia, X., Samanta, B., & Talukdar, P. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.514 · Cited by 22
A Benchmark Dataset to Distinguish Human-Written and Machine-Generated Scientific Papers
Abdalla, M. H. I., Malberg, S., Dementieva, D., Mosca, E., & Groh, G. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14100522 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 1808-1822
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3021153741
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13
- FWCI
- 11.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-19-2-1004, FA8750)
- 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 › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- AI-generated text detection, decoding strategies, top-k sampling, nucleus sampling, random sampling, human raters, text generation evaluation
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
