Cited by 59Authorship Attribution and ProfilingNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

Ghostbuster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Models

Open access
Verma, Vivek, Fleisig, Eve, Tomlin, Nicholas, Klein, Dan·2024·Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Vivek Verma, Eve Fleisig, Nicholas Tomlin, Dan Klein. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

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/v1/2024.naacl-long.95

Cites

0 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?

  • Existing detection methods are mostly binary classifiers and cannot distinguish complex LLM-generated content such as mixed human-LLM input.

    “current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of realworld scenarios like human-LLM collaboration.”

    From Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement (2025) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Additional information section says the paper’s main modeling work focuses on document-level detection and that paragraph-level detection is useful when AI assisted with only portions of an assignment. The Conclusion proposes detection within mixed human- and AI-authored documents as future work. These passages support the concern about mixed authorship, but do not establish that existing methods generally cannot distinguish it. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Scott Aaronson. 2023. Watermarking of large language models. Workshop on Large Language Models and Transformers, Simons Institute, UC Berkeley.
  2. 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
  3. Souradip Chakraborty, Amrit Singh Bedi, Sicheng Zhu, Bang An, Dinesh Manocha, and Furong Huang. 2023. On the possibilities of ai-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04736. · arXiv
  4. W Nelson Francis and Henry Kucera. 1979. Brown Corpus manual. Letters to the Editor, 5(2):7.
  5. Will Heaven. 2023. ChatGPT is going to change educa- tion, not destroy it. MIT Technology Review.
  6. John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. A watermark for large language models. In Proceed- ings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 17061-17084.
  7. PMLR.
  8. Tomoya Mizumoto, Mamoru Komachi, Masaaki Nagata, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2011. Mining revision log of language learning SNS for automated Japanese error correction of second language learners. In Proceed- ings of 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 147-155, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Asian Federation of Natural Language Pro- cessing. OpenAI. 2019. GPT-2: 1.5b release.
  9. Jiameng Pu, Zain Sarwar, Sifat Muhammad Abdullah, Abdullah Rehman, Yoonjin Kim, Parantapa Bhat- tacharya, Mobin Javed, and Bimal Viswanath. 2023. Deepfake text detection: Limitations and opportu- nities. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 1613-1630. IEEE.
  10. Vivek Verma, Nicholas Tomlin, and Dan Klein. 2023. Revisiting entropy rate constancy in text. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15537-15549, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Xuandong Zhao, Prabhanjan Ananth, Lei Li, and Yu-Xiang Wang. 2023. Provable robust water- marking for AI-generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17439. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verma, V., Fleisig, E., Tomlin, N., & Klein, D.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2024
Pages
1702-1717
OpenAlex
W4401042508
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
15.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
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
large language models, authorship detection, AI-generated text, text forgery detection

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