The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected?
Open accessAbstract
Qihui Zhang, Chujie Gao, Dongping Chen, Yue Huang, Yixin Huang, Zhenyang Sun, Shilin Zhang, Weiye Li, Zhengyan Fu, Yao Wan, Lichao Sun. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024. 2024.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Neural network-based detectors generally outperform metric-based methods in both human authorship attribution and LLM-generated text detection.
“Neural network-based detectors generally outperform metric-based methods in both human authorship attribution and LLM-generated text detection problems [He et al., 2023;Zhang et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Human-authored texts often feature unique stylistic nuances, such as variable sentence structures and emotive language.
“Human-authored texts often feature unique stylistic nuances, such as variable sentence structures and emotive language [Zhang et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Other researchers handle LLM-revised human texts and human-revised LLM texts as a single category, alongside purely human-written and purely LLM-generated texts, approaching human-LLM co-authored text authorship attribution as a three-class classification problem.
“Other researchers handle LLM-revised human texts and human-revised LLM texts as a single category, alongside purely human-written and purely LLM-generated texts, approaching human-LLM co-authored text authorship attribution as a three-class classification problem [Zhang et al., 2024;Richburg et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
MIXSET offers a more comprehensive dataset that includes text refined by LLMs through polishing, completion, and rewriting operations.
“MIXSET [Zhang et al., 2024] offers a more comprehensive dataset that includes text refined by LLMs through polishing, completion, and rewriting operations.”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Human-authored texts tend to be more coherent and exhibit greater lexical diversity compared to LLM-generated texts.
“Human-authored texts tend to be more coherent and exhibit greater lexical diversity compared to LLM-generated texts [Guo et al., 2023;Dugan et al., 2023;Zhang et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Self-BLEU are useful metrics, with a lower score indicating higher textual diversity.
“Additionally, Self-BLEU are useful metrics, with a lower score indicating higher textual diversity [Zhang et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Current work simplifies human-written text, LLM-generated content, and texts coauthored by humans and LLMs into three broad categories, without differentiating between individual human authors and specific LLMs.
“Current work simplifies human-written text, LLM-generated content, and texts coauthored by humans and LLMs into three broad categories, without differentiating between individual human authors and specific LLMs [Zhang et al., 2024;Richburg et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Citations
Cites
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04043 · Cited by 460
Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning
Muennighoff, N., Wang, T., Sutawika, L., Roberts, A., Biderman, S., Le Scao, T., Bari, M. S., Shen, S., Yong, Z. X., Schoelkopf, H., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.891 · Cited by 361
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.164 · Cited by 264
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
RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning
Hu, X., Chen, P.-Y., & Ho, T.-Y. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-0662 · Cited by 62
GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Content
Chen, Y., Kang, H., Zhai, V., Li, L., Singh, R., & Raj, B. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.07969 · Cited by 21
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“Neural network-based detectors, generally outperform metric-based methods in both human authorship attribution and LLM-generated text detection problems (He et al., 2023, Zhang et al., 2024).”
InfluentialEnhancing the Robustness of AI-Generated Text Detectors: A Survey
Liu, X., Li, Y., & Li, K. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13132145 · Cited by 10
Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge
Li, D., Sun, R., Huang, Y., Zhong, M., Jiang, B., Han, J., Zhang, X., Wang, W., & Liu, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01534 · Cited by 134
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Q., Gao, C., Chen, D., Huang, Y., Huang, Y., Sun, Z., Zhang, S., Li, W., Fu, Z., Wan, Y., & Sun, L.
- Affiliations
- Lehigh University (US)
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- University of Notre Dame (US)
- Venue
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 409-436
- OpenAlex
- W4401042507
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2246067)
- 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, large language models, text forgery detection, authorship attribution
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