Beyond Black Box AI generated Plagiarism Detection: From Sentence to Document Level
Open accessAbstract
The increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) in academic writing has led to a rise in plagiarism.Existing AI-generated text classifiers have limited accuracy and often produce false positives.We propose a novel approach using natural language processing (NLP) techniques, offering quantifiable metrics at both sentence and document levels for easier interpretation by human evaluators.Our method employs a multi-faceted approach, generating multiple paraphrased versions of a given question and inputting them into the LLM to generate answers.By using a contrastive loss function based on cosine similarity, we match generated sentences with those from the student's response.Our approach achieves up to 94% accuracy in classifying human and AI text, providing a robust and adaptable solution for plagiarism detection in academic settings.This method improves with LLM advancements, reducing the need for new model training or reconfiguration, and offers a more transparent way of evaluating and detecting AI-generated text.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
these plagiarism tools (particularly the application from Turnitin) have a problem with false positives (i.e. mistakenly identifying human-generated writing as AI-generated), particularly with writing produced by non-native speakers of English and members of Equity-Deserving Groups.
“Additionally, they also have a problem with false positives (i.e. mistakenly identifying human-generated writing as AI-generated), particularly with writing produced by non-native speakers of English and members of Equity-Deserving Groups (Chechitelli, 2023; Quidwai et al., 2023).”
From “Scarlet Cloak and the Forest Adventure”: a preliminary study of the impact of AI on commonly used writing tools (2025) · cites this paper as Quidwai et al., 2023
Quidwai, Li, and Dube (2023) analyzes sentences from LLM-generated texts and their paraphrases, distinguishing them from human-written texts by calculating cosine similarity, achieving an accuracy of up to 94%.
“(Quidwai, Li, and Dube 2023) analyzes sentences from LLM-generated texts and their paraphrases, distinguishing them from human-written texts by calculating cosine similarity, achieving an accuracy of up to 94%.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Quidwai, Li, and Dube 2023
Cites
Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond
Yang, J., Jin, H., Tang, R., Han, X., Feng, Q., Jiang, H., Zhong, S., Yin, B., & Hu, X. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3649506 · Cited by 644 · see citing works
Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection
Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/fnh48 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Yao, Y., Duan, J., Xu, K., Cai, Y., Sun, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · High-Confidence Computing · doi:10.1016/j.hcc.2024.100211 · Cited by 1,083 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMs
Balloccu, S., Schmidtová, P., Lango, M., & Dusek, O. (2024) · Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.5 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Bordalejo, B., Pafumi, D., Onuh, F., Khalid, A. K. M. I., Pearce, M. S., & O’Donnell, D. P. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00505-5 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Quidwai, A., Li, C., & Dube, P.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- IBM (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dube, Parijat
- ORCID
- Li, Chunhui
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2023)
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 727-735
- OpenAlex
- W4385565281
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- AI-generated text detection, plagiarism detection, large language models, academic writing, paraphrase generation, contrastive learning, cosine similarity, human vs AI text classification
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