Cited by 18Authorship Attribution and ProfilingNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

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 access
Zhang, Qihui, Gao, Chujie, Chen, Dongping, Huang, Yue, Huang, Yixin, Sun, Zhenyang, Zhang, Shilin, Li, Weiye, Fu, Zhengyan, Wan, Yao, Sun, Lichao·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.29

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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.”
  • 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].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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