Cited by 16Authorship Attribution and ProfilingTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Beat LLMs at their own game: Zero-shot LLM-generated text detection via querying ChatGPT

Open access
Zhu, Biru, Yuan, Lifan, Cui, Ganqu, Chen, Yangyi, Fu, Chong, He, Bingxiang, Deng, Yangdong, Liu, Zhiyuan +2 more·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Biru Zhu, Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Chong Fu, Bingxiang He, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Ming Gu. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.463

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 latest emerging black-box zero-shot methods demonstrate enhanced stability and application potential compared to white-box based zero-shot methods by extracting discriminative metrics that are independent of white-box models.

    “We have observed that the latest emerging black-box zero-shot methods (Yang et al. 2023b; Mao et al. 2024; Zhu et al. 2023; Quidwai, Li, and Dube 2023; Guo and Yu 2023) demonstrate enhanced stability and application potential compared to whitebox based zero-shot methods by extracting discriminative metrics that are independent of white-box models.”

    From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Zhu et al. 2023

    Section 4.2.1 reports consistently good detection performance across datasets for this black-box method, while zero-shot methods using a proxy model perform poorly on some datasets. The Introduction explains that the method avoids access to the source model’s logits or losses. But the paper evaluates this method, not black-box zero-shot methods generally, and its principal similarity metric, BARTScore-CNN, uses a BART model; it does not establish independence from all white-box models. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Anton Bakhtin, Sam Gross, Myle Ott, Yuntian Deng, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Arthur Szlam. 2019. Real or fake? learning to discriminate ma- chine from human generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03351. · arXiv
  2. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Ma- teusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  3. Shu Chen, Zeqian Ju, Xiangyu Dong, Hongchao Fang, Sicheng Wang, Yue Yang, Jiaqi Zeng, Ruisi Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Meng Zhou, et al. 2020. Meddialog: a large-scale medical dialogue dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03329. · arXiv
  4. Alexander Fabbri, Irene Li, Tianwei She, Suyi Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. Multi-news: A large-scale multi-document summarization dataset and abstrac- tive hierarchical model. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1074-1084, Florence, Italy. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597. · arXiv
  6. Xinlei He, Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2023. Mgtbench: Benchmarking machine-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14822. · arXiv
  7. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefen- stette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28.
  8. Ganesh Jawahar, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and VS Laks Lakshmanan. 2020. Automatic detection of machine generated text: A critical survey. In Pro- ceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2296-2309.
  9. Anastassia Kornilova and Vladimir Eidelman. 2019. BillSum: A corpus for automatic summarization of US legislation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 48-56, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  10. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  12. Aengus Lynch, Gbètondji JS Dovonon, Jean Kaddour, and Ricardo Silva. 2023. Spawrious: A benchmark for fine control of spurious correlation biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05470. · arXiv
  13. Macedo Maia, Siegfried Handschuh, André Freitas, Brian Davis, Ross McDermott, Manel Zarrouk, and Alexandra Balahur. 2018. Www'18 open challenge: financial opinion mining and question answering. In Companion proceedings of the the web conference 2018, pages 1941-1942.
  14. Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuris- tics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 311-318.
  16. Fanchao Qi, Mukai Li, Yangyi Chen, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Hidden killer: Invisible textual backdoor at- tacks with syntactic trigger. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 443-453, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  17. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  18. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Tr- ishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, An- drea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multi- task prompted training enables zero-shot task gener- alization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  19. Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Rad- ford, Gretchen Krueger, Jong Wook Kim, Sarah Kreps, et al. 2019. Release strategies and the so- cial impacts of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09203. · arXiv
  20. Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, Kai Shu, and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Authorship attribution for neural text gener- ation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8384-8395, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text genera- tion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 27263-27277.
  22. Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Eval- uating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, B., Yuan, L., Cui, G., Chen, Y., Fu, C., He, B., Deng, Y., Liu, Z., Sun, M., & Gu, M.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Deng, Yangdong
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
7470-7483
OpenAlex
W4389520675
Cited by
16
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62236004)
  • Tsinghua University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
LLM-generated text detection, ChatGPT, large language models, text forgery detection, generative AI

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