CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 460Authorship Attribution and ProfilingDigital Media Forensic DetectionNatural Language Processing Techniques

GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text

Open access
Gehrmann, Sebastian, Strobelt, Hendrik, Rush, Alexander M.·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1906.04043arXiv 1906.04043
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rapid improvement of language models has raised the specter of abuse of text generation systems. This progress motivates the development of simple methods for detecting generated text that can be used by and explained to non-experts. We develop GLTR, a tool to support humans in detecting whether a text was generated by a model. GLTR applies a suite of baseline statistical methods that can detect generation artifacts across common sampling schemes. In a human-subjects study, we show that the annotation scheme provided by GLTR improves the human detection-rate of fake text from 54% to 72% without any prior training. GLTR is open-source and publicly deployed, and has already been widely used to detect generated outputs

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.04043

Cites

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?

  • Using GLTR can improve the ability of participants to correctly identify machine generated content from 54% to 74%.

    “This study demonstrates that using GLTR can improve the ability of participants to correctly identify detection of machine generated content from 54% to 74%.”

    From Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond (2023) · cites this paper as Gehrmann et al. (2019)

    The Results report that participants’ accuracy improved from 54.2% without the GLTR interface to 72.3% with it. The claimed improvement to 74% is not the figure reported in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • GLTR was tested against GPT-2 produced output and used students rather than academic staff as participants.

    “However, this tool was tested against GPT-2 produced output and used students rather than academic staff as their participants.”

    From Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond (2023) · cites this paper as Gehrmann et al. (2019)

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Yuki Arase and Ming Zhou. 2013. Machine translation detection from monolingual web-text. In Proceed- ings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), volume 1, pages 1597-1607.
  2. Sameer Badaskar, Sachin Agarwal, and Shilpa Arora. 2008. Identifying real or fake articles: Towards better language modeling. In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: Volume-II.
  3. Daria Beresneva. 2016. Computer-generated text de- tection using machine learning: A systematic re- view. In International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, pages 421-426. Springer.
  4. Jan Chorowski and Navdeep Jaitly. 2016. Towards better decoding and language model integration in sequence to sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.02695. · arXiv
  5. Ido Dagan and Sean P Engelson. 1995. Selective sam- pling in natural language learning. In Proceed- ings of the IJCAI Workshop on New Approaches to Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 41-48.
  6. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  7. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceed- ings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), volume 1, pages 889-898.
  8. Tommaso Fornaciari and Massimo Poesio. 2014. Iden- tifying fake amazon reviews as learning from crowds. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 279-287.
  9. EA Grechnikov, GG Gusev, AA Kustarev, and A Raigorodsky. 2009. Detection of artificial texts. RCDL2009 Proceedings. Petrozavodsk, pages 306- 308.
  10. James V. Grimaldi. 2018. U.s. investigating fake com- ments on net neutrality. The Wall Street Journal.
  11. Barbara J Grosz, Scott Weinstein, and Aravind K Joshi. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the lo- cal coherence of discourse. Computational linguis- tics, 21(2):203-225.
  12. Jiatao Gu, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor OK Li. 2017. Trainable greedy decoding for neural machine trans- lation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02429. · arXiv
  13. Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02792. · arXiv
  14. Felix Hill, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. The goldilocks principle: Reading children's books with explicit memory representa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02301. · arXiv
  15. Dirk Hovy. 2016. The enemy in your own camp: How well can we detect statistically-generated fake reviews-an adversarial study. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), vol- ume 2, pages 351-356.
  16. Bryan McCann, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Learned in translation: Con- textualized word vectors. In Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, pages 6294-6305.
  17. Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05365. · arXiv
  18. Louis Shao, Stephan Gouws, Denny Britz, Anna Goldie, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2017. Generating high-quality and informative conversa- tion responses with sequence-to-sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.03185. · arXiv
  19. Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake news detection on social me- dia: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Ex- plorations Newsletter, 19(1):22-36.
  20. William Yang Wang. 2017. " liar, liar pants on fire": A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00648. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
111-116
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1906.04043
arXiv
1906.04043
OpenAlex
W2949028947
Cited by
460
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 4
FWCI
8.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1845664)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
statistical detection methods, sampling artifacts, manual annotation, large language models

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