Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Open accessAbstract
Recent advancements in neural language modelling make it possible to rapidly generate vast amounts of human-sounding text. The capabilities of humans and automatic discriminators to detect machine-generated text have been a large source of research interest, but humans and machines rely on different cues to make their decisions. Here, we perform careful benchmarking and analysis of three popular sampling-based decoding strategies---top-$k$, nucleus sampling, and untruncated random sampling---and show that improvements in decoding methods have primarily optimized for fooling humans. This comes at the expense of introducing statistical abnormalities that make detection easy for automatic systems. We also show that though both human and automatic detector performance improve with longer excerpt length, even multi-sentence excerpts can fool expert human raters over 30% of the time. Our findings reveal the importance of using both human and automatic detectors to assess the humanness of text generation systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 rest of the zero-shot detectors also perform poorly after the attack.
“The rest of the zero-shot detectors (Solaiman et al., 2019; Gehrmann et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2019) also perform poorly after our attack.”
From Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (2023) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2019
The Histogram-of-Likelihood Ranks section describes likelihood-based detection baselines, so the paper is relevant to the detectors being cited. It does not describe them as zero-shot, and its Automatic Detection Results section does not test performance after the citing authors’ attack. That post-attack result is the citing authors’ own finding, not a finding established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTools by Solaiman et al. (2019) and Ippolito et al. (2020) showed an encouraging ability in detecting machine created text, but were not tested against the latest generation of LLMs.
“Solaiman et al. (2019) and Ippolito et al.(2020) also both present tools which showed an encouraging ability in detecting machine created text, although these tools were not tested against the latest generation of LLMs.”
From Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond (2023) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al.(2020)
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
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · see citing works
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Encoderonly Transformer models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) have been shown to do very well at tasks requiring this understanding.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It propogates quickly (Vosoughi et al., 2018), sets political agendas”
BackgroundSocial Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It propogates quickly (Vosoughi et al., 2018), sets political agendas (Vargo et al., 2018), influences elections (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017), and undermines user trust (Wang et al., 2012; Song et al., 2015).”
BackgroundGoogle's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation
Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.08144 · Cited by 5,319 · see citing works
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865 · cited 2× · see citing works
“textual word embeddings from a pre-trained BERT model without fine-tuning to compute a quality score for generated text (Zhang et al., 2020).”
MethodHierarchical Neural Story Generation
Fan, A., Lewis, M., & Dauphin, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1082 · Cited by 1,266 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Top-k restricts the distribution to all but the k most likely tokens, where k is a constant (Fan et al., 2018).”
BackgroundFake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud
Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2304 · Cited by 1,263 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(National Literacy Trust,2018). Aside from news, crowdturfing of fake reviews on websites such as Amazon and Yelp signifi- cantly undermines user trust (Wang et al.,2012; Song et al.,2015). According toLuca and Zervas (2016), approximately 16% of Yelp restaurant reviews were fraudulent as of 2012. Recently,Adelani et al…”
BackgroundAdversarial Learning for Neural Dialogue Generation
Li, J., Monroe, W., Shi, T., Jean, S., Ritter, A., & Jurafsky, D. (2017) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1230 · Cited by 880 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Finally, discriminators for whether text is machine-generated are a promising research direction in adversarial training (Lin et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017) and in”
BackgroundVargo, C. J., Гуо, Л., & Amazeen, M. A. (2017) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817712086 · Cited by 638 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It propogates quickly (Vosoughi et al., 2018), sets political agendas ∗Equal contribution, ‡Google, †University of Pennsylvania (Vargo et al., 2018), influences elections (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017), and undermines user trust (Wang et al., 2012; Song et al., 2015).”
BackgroundGenerating Wikipedia by Summarizing Long SequencesPreprint
Liu, P. J., Saleh, M., Pot, E., Goodrich, B., Sepassi, R., Kaiser, Ł., & Shazeer, N. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.10198 · Cited by 578 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2019), and Transformer-DMCA (Liu et al., 2018) are a few examples of large, publicly available models with this ability.”
BackgroundGLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-3019 · Cited by 470 · cited 9× · see citing works
“Kreps et al. (2020), Gehrmann et al. (2019), and others have stressed the importance of humans being able to identify fake content on the web.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLG
Novikova, J., Dušek, O., Cercas Curry, A., & Rieser, V. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1238 · Cited by 422 · cited 2× · see citing works
“automatic evaluation of generative model quality (Novikova et al., 2017; Kannan and Vinyals, 2017; Lowe et al., 2017).”
BackgroundProbing Neural Network Comprehension of Natural Language Arguments
Niven, T., & Kao, H.-Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1459 · Cited by 395 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It is worth noting that recent work has raised questions as to whether BERT truly builds a semantic understanding to make its predictions, or whether it merely takes advantage of spurious statistical differences between the text of different classes (Niven and Kao, 2019).”
BackgroundAdversarial Ranking for Language GenerationPreprint
Lin, K., Li, D., He, X.-D., Zhang, Z.-Y., & Sun, M.-T. (2017) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.11001 · Cited by 354 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Finally, discriminators for whether text is machine-generated are a promising research direction in adversarial training (Lin et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017) and in”
BackgroundTowards an Automatic Turing Test: Learning to Evaluate Dialogue Responses
Lowe, R., Noseworthy, M., Serban, I. V., Angelard-Gontier, N., Bengio, Y., & Pineau, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1103 · Cited by 341 · cited 3× · see citing works
“It continues to be used is chatbot evaluation (Lowe et al., 2017).”
BackgroundRelease Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models
Solaiman, I., Brundage, M., Clark, J., Askell, A., Herbert-Voss, A., Wu, J., Radford, A., Krueger, G., Kim, J. W., Kreps, S., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.09203 · Cited by 292 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Total Probability Solaiman et al. (2019) pro-pose a very simple baseline consisting of a threshold on the total probability of the text sequence.”
BackgroundBest practices for the human evaluation of automatically generated text
van der Lee, C., Gatt, A., van Miltenburg, E., Wubben, S., & Krahmer, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-8643 · Cited by 205 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The related (but not identical) task of asking human raters to judge the quality of machine-generated excerpts remains the gold-standard for evaluating open-domain generation systems (van der Lee et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSerf and turf: crowdturfing for fun and profit
Wang, G., Wilson, C., Zhao, X., Zhu, Y., Mohanlal, M., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187928 · Cited by 197 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2018), influences elections (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017), and undermines user trust (Wang et al., 2012; Song et al., 2015).”
BackgroundDo Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers?
See, A., Pappu, A., Saxena, R., Yerukola, A., & Manning, C. D. (2019) · Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) · doi:10.18653/v1/k19-1079 · Cited by 139 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In fact, See et al. (2019) note that it takes setting k to 1000 to achieve about the same amount of rare word usage and fraction of non-stopword text as as human writing.3 This makes it very easy for the model to pick out machine-generated text based on these distributional differences.”
BackgroundThe limitations of stylometry for detecting machine-generated fake news
Schuster, T., Schuster, R., Shah, D. J., & Barzilay, R. (2020) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00380 · Cited by 109 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Schuster et al. (2019) argue that the language distributional features implicitly or explicitly employed by these detectors are insufficient; instead, one should look to explicit fact-verification models.”
BackgroundAdelani, D. I., Mai, H., Fang, F., Nguyen, H. H., Yamagishi, J., & Echizen, I. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44041-1_114 · Cited by 108 · cited 2× · see citing works
“State-of-the-art generative language models are now capable of producing multi-paragraph excerpts that at a surface level are virtually indistinguishable from human-written content (Zellers et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019; Adelani et al., 2020).”
BackgroundReal or Fake? Learning to Discriminate Machine from Human Generated Text
Bakhtin, A., Gross, S., Ott, M., Deng, Y., Ranzato, M., & Szlam, A. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.03351 · Cited by 77 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Bakhtin et al. (2019) frame human-text detection as a ranking task and evaluate their models’ cross-domain and cross-model generalization, finding significant loss in quality when training on one domain and evaluating on another.”
BackgroundAdversarial Evaluation of Dialogue ModelsPreprint
Kannan, A., & Vinyals, O. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.08198 · Cited by 65 · cited 2× · see citing works
“automatic evaluation of generative model quality (Novikova et al., 2017; Kannan and Vinyals, 2017; Lowe et al., 2017).”
BackgroundCrowdTarget: Target-based Detection of Crowdturfing in Online Social Networks
Song, J., Lee, S., & Kim, J. (2015) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2810103.2813661 · Cited by 50 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2018), influences elections (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017), and undermines user trust (Wang et al., 2012; Song et al., 2015).”
BackgroundFake News and Alternative Facts: Information Literacy in a Post-Truth Era
Cooke, N. A. (2018) · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Are We Safe Yet? The Limitations of Distributional Features for Fake News Detection.Preprint
Schuster, T., Schuster, R., Shah, D., & Barzilay, R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Miculicich, L., Marone, M., & Hassan, H. (2019) · Workshop on Neural Generation and Translation (WNGT) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5633 · Cited by 7 · cited 2× · see citing works
“5 (Miculicich et al., 2019)), the distributional deviations that plague top-k text will surface in nucleus sampling as well.”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Timothy Niven and Hung-Yu Kao. 2019. Probing neu- ral network comprehension of natural language ar- guments. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 4658-4664, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715- 1725.
- Alan Turing. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence-am turing. Mind, 59(236):433.
- Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Defending against neural fake news. CoRR, abs/1905.12616. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676 · see citing works
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
“Solaiman et al. (2019) and Ippolito et al.(2020) also both present tools which showed an encouraging ability in detecting machine created text, although these tools were not tested against the latest generation of LLMs. Fröhling & Zubiaga (2021) present a promising low cost detection model which is…”
Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models
Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07805 · Cited by 727 · see citing works
Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed
Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2208839120 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
“Recent work by Ippolito et al. (35) suggests that language model–decoding methods have been optimized for fooling humans at the cost of introducing statistical anomalies easily detected by machines.”
BackgroundInfluentialA Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Can Generative AI improve social science?
Bail, C. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2314021121 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
All That’s ‘Human’ Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.565 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
“Solaiman et al. ( 2019) and Ippolito et al. ( 2020 ) also presented tools for detecting machine-generated text, although their applicability to newer LLMs remains untested.”
Machine-Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods
Crothers, E. N., Japkowicz, N., & Viktor, H. L. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294090 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
“Longer sequence lengths are beneficial to detection [5], [133], [142], [161].”
InfluentialTweepFake: about detecting deepfake tweets
Fagni, T., Falchi, F., Gambini, M., Martella, A., & Tesconi, M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251415 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
“Ippolito et al (2020) [15] employed as a baseline a TF approach followed by a logistic regression classifier.”
BackgroundMethodA Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions
Wu, J., Yang, S., Zhan, R., Yuan, Y., Chao, L. S., & Wong, D. F. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00549 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11156 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
“Non-watermarking detectors such as trained classifiers [3], retrieval-based detectors [4], and zero-shot classifiers [2, 24, 23, 22] use the presence of LLM-specific signatures in AI-generated texts for their detection.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAutomatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey
Jawahar, G., Abdul-Mageed, M., & Lakshmanan, V. S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.208 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
“Differences in human and machine detector : Ippolito et al., (2020) study the differences in the ability of humans and automated detectors to identify text generated by TGM.”
BackgroundA Survey on the Detection and Impacts of Deepfakes in Visual, Audio, and Textual Formats
Mubarak, R., Alsboui, T., Alshaikh, O., Inuwa-Dutse, I., Khan, S., & Parkinson, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3344653 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
“In the research conducted by Ippolito et al. [245], They explore three prevalent random decoding strategies: top-k, nucleus, and temperature sampling, applied specifically to detect text generated by GPT-2.”
MethodLarge language models: a survey of their development, capabilities, and applications
Yadagiri, A., & Pakray, P. (2024) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-024-02310-4 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
ChatGPT for Cybersecurity: Practical Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions
Al-Hawawreh, M., Aljuhani, A., & Jararweh, Y. (2023) · Cluster Computing · doi:10.1007/s10586-023-04124-5 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
“In 2020, GPT-3 has emerged to play a critical role in improving language models and making significant progress in NLP tasks due to its capabilities in generating texts that are difficult to distinguish from those written by humans [18, 19].”
Rethinking search: making domain experts out of dilettantes
Metzler, D., Tay, Y., Bahri, D., & Najork, M. (2021) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/3476415.3476428 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“In fact, some of the text synthesized by such models are indistinguishable from text written by humans [Ippolito et al., 2020].”
BackgroundRepairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Clark, E., & Sellam, T. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13715 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“, 2021) or trained, in-person evaluators (Ippolito et al., 2020) were needed to distinguish between human-authored text and text generated by today’s generation mod-”
BackgroundFeature-based detection of automated language models: tackling GPT-2, GPT-3 and Grover
Fröhling, L., & Zubiaga, A. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.443 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Simple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: implications for inclusive education
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Vu, B. H., Postma, D., Hickerson, D., McGaughran, J., & Khuat, H. Q. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00487-w · Cited by 117 · see citing works
“Other techniques for evading the identification of machine-generated text have also been presented by Solaiman et al. (2019), Sadasivan et al. (2023) and Ippolito et al. (2020).”
MethodLanguage Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Survey
Chang, T. A., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00492 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“quences (Ippolito et al. 2020), but even when provided with specialized instructions and examples, people only reach about 55% accuracy (Clark et al.”
BackgroundAdversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hiding
Abdelnabi, S., & Fritz, M. (2021) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp40001.2021.00083 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“Although it improves with averaging 2 sentences, it indicates that it would be even harder to retain high accuracy using other decoding strategies that introduce more variation in generations, such as top-k or top-p sampling [5], [8], [13], [89].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation
Uchendu, A., Ma, Z., Le, T., Zhang, R., & Lee, D. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.172 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“Most current work focus on fake news detection (Rashkin et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2019; Bhat and Parthasarathy, 2020; Zhong et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2020; Ippolito et al., 2020).”
BackgroundDetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text
Su, J., Zhuo, T. Y., Wang, D., & Nakov, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.827 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Detecting computer-generated disinformation
Stiff, H., & Johansson, F. (2022) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-021-00299-5 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“Averages over the calculated values can also be used as input features to shallow classifiers, which has been tested with limited success [26].”
BackgroundContrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text
Muñoz-Ortiz, A., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Vilares, D. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“Ippolito et al. (2020) observed two interesting behaviors related to this classification task: (i) that using more complex sampling methods can help make generated text better at tricking humans into thinking it was written by a person, but conversely make the detection for machines more accessible…”
BackgroundQuantifying large language model usage in scientific papers
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07183 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“…risks associated with AI-generated content has sparked a debate about their effectiveness and reliability (OpenAI, 2019; Jawahar et al., 2020; Fagni et al., 2021; Ippolito et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2023b; Gehrmann et al., 2019; Heikkil ¨ a, 2022; Crothers et al., 2022; Solaiman et al., 2019a).”
Shaaban, O. A., Yıldırım, R., & Alguttar, A. A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3333866 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Detecting fake text is a complex task [22].”
BackgroundEmbracing ChatGPT: Implications of Emergent Language Models for Academia and Libraries
Houston, A. B., & Corrado, E. M. (2023) · Technical Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07317131.2023.2187110 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Ibrahim, K. (2023) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-023-00260-2 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“…2022), especially since human raters have difficulty distinguishing between AI-generated and human-written texts (Brown et al., 2020; Hovy, 2016; Ippolito et al, 2019; Solaiman et al., 2019) and traditional plagiarism detection software fail to detect AI-generated texts (Khalil & Er, 2023).”
BackgroundDeepfake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportunities
Pu, J., Sarwar, Z., Abdullah, S. M., Rehman, A., Kim, Y., Bhattacharya, P., Javed, M., & Viswanath, B. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179387 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“We consider the defenses, BERTDefense and GROVER since they exhibit a degradation in performance (Table III).5 While fine-tuning BERT-Defense on our small datasets, we encountered a known issue of training instability [30].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIdentifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI
Barrett, C., Boyd, B., Bursztein, E., Carlini, N., Chen, B., Choi, J., Chowdhury, A. R., Christodorescu, M., Datta, A., Feizi, S., et al. (2023) · Foundations and Trends® in Privacy and Security · doi:10.1561/3300000041 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Zero-shot detectors: These detectors perform without any additional training overhead and use some statistical signatures of AI-generated content to conduct the detection [84, 39, 32].”
MethodThe Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generation
Karpinska, M., Akoury, N., & Iyyer, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.97 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
“Previous studies have asked workers to choose from (Mori et al., 2019) or distinguish between human-written and machine-generated texts (Garbacea et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2021).”
BackgroundDugan, L., Ippolito, D., Kirubarajan, A., Shi, S., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26501 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationBob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment
Richards, M., Waugh, K., Slaymaker, M., Petre, M., Woodthorpe, J., & Gooch, D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3633287 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“…of experiments using GPT-2 and other LLMs. Ippolito et al. noted that human discrimination of LLM outputs is generally lower than software detection, and that, to disguise their origins, LLMs tend to add statistical anomalies that potentially allow consistent detection of artificial scripts [ 29 ].”
Sadiq, S., Aljrees, T., & Ullah, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3308515 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Koike, R., Kaneko, M., & Okazaki, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30120 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Shah, A., Ranka, P., Dedhia, U., Prasad, S., Muni, S., & Bhowmick, K. (2023) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2023.01410110 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“These decoding strategies include top-k and untruncated random sampling [15].”
MethodMGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection
He, X., Shen, X., Chen, Z., Michael Backes, A., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670344 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“Here we take the BERT model as an example to evaluate its efficacy following Ippolito et al. [17].”
CHEAT: A Large-Scale Dataset for Detecting CHatGPT-writtEn AbsTracts
Yu, P., Chen, J., Feng, X., & Xia, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2025.3536929 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“After that, Ippolito et al. [24] constructed a novel text synthesis dataset and fine-tuned the BERT classification model, significantly improving the detection accuracy on synthetic texts.”
Kovács, B. (2024) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-024-09729-3 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“A 2019 study showed that shorter AI text can fool readers (Ippolito et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection
Wang, P., Li, L., Ren, K., Jiang, B., Zhang, D., & Qiu, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.73 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
ConDA: Contrastive Domain Adaptation for AI-generated Text Detection
Bhattacharjee, A., Kumarage, T., Moraffah, R., & Liu, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language GenerationPreprint
Zhang, H., Duckworth, D., Ippolito, D., & Neelakantan, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.10450 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“The concept of oversampling generations and then ranking them has been popular since the days of statistical machine translation (Shen et al., 2004) but has also been used more recently in other domains (Li et al., 2016; Ippolito et al., 2019b; Kriz et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCross-domain detection of GPT-2-generated technical text
Rodriguez, J., Hay, T., Gros, D., Shamsi, Z., & Srinivasan, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.88 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“…Kreps et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2021), product reviews (Hovy, 2016; Yao et al., 2017; Ade-lani et al., 2020), web text (Gehrmann et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2020), stories (Clark et al., 2021; Donahue et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2021; Gunser et al., 2021), peer reviews (Bartoli and…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLanguage Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey
Kumar, S., Balachandran, V., Njoo, L., Anastasopoulos, A., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.241 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Chein, J. M., Martinez, S. A., & Barone, A. R. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76218-y · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“While several factors, including the overall length of a text 17 , can influence evaluation accuracy and dictate how credible or trustworthy human evaluators find the AI-outputs 28–30 , it’s clear that modern gAIs are very often able to fool human evaluators.”
BackgroundResultRoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Text
Dugan, L. D., Ippolito, D., Kirubarajan, A., & Callison-Burch, C. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.25 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationHanley, H. W. A., & Durumeric, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31333 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
How Large Language Models are Transforming Machine-Paraphrase Plagiarism
Wahle, J. P., Ruas, T., Kirstein, F., & Gipp, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.62 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“We presume automated detection solutions can identify paraphrases better than humans as (Ippolito et al., 2020) showed that large language models are optimized to fool humans at the expense of introducing statistical anomalies which automated solutions can spot.”
BackgroundFrustratingly Easy Edit-based Linguistic Steganography with a Masked Language Model
Ueoka, H., Murawaki, Y., & Kurohashi, S. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.433 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“However, it remains challenging for an LM to generate so genuine-looking texts that they fool both humans and machines (Ippolito et al., 2020) even if they do not encode secret messages.”
BackgroundDoes Human Collaboration Enhance the Accuracy of Identifying LLM-Generated Deepfake Texts?
Uchendu, A., Lee, J., Shen, H., Le, T., Huang, T.-H., & Lee, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v11i1.27557 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“However, due to the flaws of stylometric classifiers, deep-learning techniques have been proposed (Bakhtin et al. 2019; Huggingface 2023; Zellers et al. 2019; Ippolito et al. 2020; Ai et al. 2022; Jawa-har, Abdul-Mageed, and Lakshmanan 2022).”
Madani, M., Motameni, H., & Roshani, R. (2023) · International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · doi:10.1142/s0219622023500347 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspective
Uchendu, A., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2023) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3606274.3606276 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“[44] evaluated the quality of top-p and top-k decoding strategies, and found that (1) AA models detect neural”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThree Bricks to Consolidate Watermarks for Large Language Models
Fernandez, P., Chaffin, A., Tit, K., Chappelier, V., & Furon, T. (2023) · IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/wifs58808.2023.10374576 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“Monitoring the usage of LLMs with passive forensics is difficult because generated texts are hardly distinguishable from real ones, be it for humans or algorithms [12], [13].”
BackgroundAdversarial Semantic Collisions
Song, C., Rush, A. M., & Shmatikov, V. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.344 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Recent works explored automatic detection of generated texts using a binary classifier trained on human-written and machine-generated data (Zellers et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2020).”
BackgroundArtificial Text Detection via Examining the Topology of Attention Maps
Kushnareva, L., Cherniavskii, D., Mikhailov, V., Artemova, E., Barannikov, S., Bernstein, A., Piontkovskaya, I., Piontkovski, D., & Burnaev, E. V. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.50 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“In pre-trained LMs, the evolution goes through the layers of the model, changing the representation of each token, ending up with highly contextualized token representations, and the aggregated representation of the whole sentence (in the form of the [CLS]- token).”
InfluentialA Comprehensive Survey of Fake Text Detection on Misinformation and LM-Generated Texts
Kwon, S.-C., & Jang, B. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3538805 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Can Machines Tell Stories? A Comparative Study of Deep Neural Language Models and Metrics
Das, A., & Verma, R. M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3023421 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“The authors in [18] investigate how automated discriminators compare with human evaluators in this context.”
BackgroundTruncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothing
Hewitt, J., Manning, C. D., & Liang, P. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.249 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Enhancing Machine-Generated Text Detection: Adversarial Fine-Tuning of Pre-Trained Language Models
Lee, D., & Jang, B. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3396820 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“However, the texts generated were similar to those written by humans, making them difficult to distinguish [19].”
Detection of AI-Generated Texts: A Bi-LSTM and Attention-Based Approach
Blake, J., Miah, A. S. M., Kredens, K., & Shin, J. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3562750 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Research by Bakhtin et al. [33] explored updated fake text detection using quantitative system results, while Dugan et al. [34] utilized fine-tuned BERT models to address the impacts of text excerpt length and sampling strategy.”
Tactics, Threats & Targets: Modeling Disinformation and its Mitigation
Mirza, M. S., Begum, L., Niu, L., Pardo, S., Abouzeid, A., Papotti, P., & Pöpper, C. (2023) · Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2023.23657 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection
Wang, Y., Mansurov, J., Ivanov, P., Su, J., Shelmanov, A., Tsvigun, A., Mohammed Afzal, O., Mahmoud, T., Puccetti, G., Arnold, T., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.218 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Synthetic Disinformation Attacks on Automated Fact Verification Systems
Du, Y., Bosselut, A., & Manning, C. D. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21302 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Recent years have brought considerable improvements in the language generation capabilities of neural language models (Lewis et al. 2020; Ji et al. 2020; Brown et al. 2020; Holtzman et al. 2020), allowing users of these systems to pass off their generations as human-produced (Ippolito et al. 2020).”
BackgroundNeural Language Generation: Formulation, Methods, and EvaluationPreprint
Gârbacea, C., & Mei, Q. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.15780 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“rated texts are needed to ensure unbiased, responsible and ethical usage of the natural language generation technology for societal benefit, while combating any of its potential malicious deployments (Ippolito et al., 2020), (Kreps et al., 2020). Interpretable explanations can also help determine how much factual knowl…”
BackgroundLiu, Z. Q., Yao, Z., Li, F., & Luo, B. (2024) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670392 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“They fine-tune the pre-trained language models for detection: BERT [47], DistillBERT [37], and RoBERTa [35, 63, 68, 104].”
Detection of Fake Generated Scientific Abstracts
Theocharopoulos, P. C., Anagnostou, P., Tsoukala, A., Georgakopoulos, S. V., Tasoulis, S. K., & Plagianakos, V. P. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications (BigDataService) · doi:10.1109/bigdataservice58306.2023.00011 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“Detecting synthetic text is getting extremely challenging because sophisticated text generation has been pursued for many years, culminating in the impressive capabilities of GPT-3, which can even deceive human readers [10].”
BackgroundThe “Code” of Ethics: A Holistic Audit of AI Code Generators
Ma, W., Song, Y., Xue, M., Wen, S., & Xiang, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2024.3367737 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Despite much effort made in this area, they solely focus on natural language generation models [34], [95], [47], [85], [61], [41], [80].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Benchmark Dataset to Distinguish Human-Written and Machine-Generated Scientific Papers
Abdalla, M. H. I., Malberg, S., Dementieva, D., Mosca, E., & Groh, G. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14100522 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Education
Zeng, Z., Sha, L., Li, Y., Yang, K., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i20.30258 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“…these tools are the AI content detection studies, which have been focused on either (a) investigating humans’ abilities to detect AI content (Ippolito et al. 2020; Clark et al. 2021; Brown et al. 2020; Ethayarajh and Jurafsky 2022; Dugan et al. 2023), e.g., Ethayarajh and Jurafsky (2022)…”
BackgroundMethodNew Automation for Social Bots: From Trivial Behavior to AI-Powered Communication
Grimme, C., Pohl, J., Cresci, S., Lüling, R., & Preuss, M. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18253-2_6 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Pu, H., Lan, Y., & Shen, C. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1005 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“To circumvent the per-090 formance degradation brought by the easy samples, we propose a novel contrastive loss with capability to reweight the effect of negative samples by diffi-093 culty score to help model concentrate more on hard samples and ignore the easy samples.”
MethodA Systematic Characterization of Sampling Algorithms for Open-ended Language Generation
Nadeem, M., He, T., Cho, K., & Glass, J. R. (2020) · Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (AACL-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.aacl-main.36 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“Since shorter samples are more difficult to judge in quality (Ippolito et al., 2020), we filter all generated sentence completions to be between 40 and 50 subwords, and filter our validation and test set to meet the same requirements.”
Automated Identification of Social Media Bots Using Deepfake Text Detection
Saravani, S. M., Ray, I., & Ray, I. (2021) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-92571-0_7 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“have reached the capability of generating high quality text and some studies report that the humans detection rate against these text samples is near chance [2,15].”
BackgroundInfluentialAn Overview on Language Models: Recent Developments and OutlookPreprint
Wei, C., Wang, Y.-C., Wang, B., & Kuo, C. ‐. J. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.05759 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
AI-generated text detection: A comprehensive review of methods, datasets, and applications
Kehkashan, T., Riaz, R. A., Al‐Shamayleh, A. S., Akhunzada, A., Ali, N., Hamza, M., & Akbar, F. (2025) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100793 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Limits of Detecting Text Generated by Large-Scale Language Models
Varshney, L. R., Keskar, N. S., & Socher, R. (2020) · Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA) · doi:10.1109/ita50056.2020.9245012 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
How to Detect AI-Generated Texts?
Nguyen, T. T., Hatua, A., & Sung, A. H. (2023) · IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) · doi:10.1109/uemcon59035.2023.10316132 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“AI-generated text, or in general machine-generated text, detection problem has become a very popular topic started from the Turing test and then used in chatbot evaluation [20].”
MethodDetection Vs. Anti-detection: Is Text Generated by AI Detectable?
Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., Liu, J., Liu, X., Wang, X., & Lu, W. P. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57850-2_16 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Between Lines of Code: Unraveling the Distinct Patterns of Machine and Human Programmers
Shi, Y., Zhang, H., Wan, C., & Gu, X. (2025) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00005 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“These choices are aimed at providing a comprehensive analysis of coding styles between human and machine programmers.”
InfluentialMirostat: A Neural Text Decoding Algorithm that Directly Controls PerplexityPreprint
Basu, S., Ramachandran, G. S., Keskar, N. S., & Varshney, L. R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.14966 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Hence, choosing the right decoding algorithm is important to generate high-quality texts with controlled attributes [4]–[6].”
BackgroundAutomatic Detection of Machine Generated Texts: Need More Tokens
Gritsay, G., Grabovoy, A., & Chekhovich, Y. V. (2022) · Ivannikov Memorial Workshop (IVMEM) · doi:10.1109/ivmem57067.2022.9983964 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“D. Ippolito in [10] showed that for different sampling methods, increasing the input sequence length improves the quality of transformerbased discriminators.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialOne-Class Learning for AI-Generated Essay Detection
Corizzo, R., & Leal-Arenas, S. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13137901 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
How effectively can machines defend against machine-generated fake news? An empirical study
Bhat, M. M., & Parthasarathy, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the First Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.7 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Ippolito et al. (2019) recently studied the influence of excerpt length for classification of machine-generated and human-written text.”
BackgroundLee, S.-C., Lee, D.-G., & Seo, Y. (2023) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-023-05201-3 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“These two sampling techniques select probabilities for generating human-like text [33].”
Synthetically generated text for supervised text analysis
Halterman, A. (2025) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.31 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“…here—the adversarial procedure and the embedding space coverage check—address two of the specific requirements of using synthetic text to train supervised models and compliment existing techniques in NLP for synthetic text detection (e.g., Ippolito, Duckworth, and Eck 2020; Zellers et al .”
Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russian
Shamardina, T., Mikhailov, V., Chernianskii, D., Fenogenova, A., Saidov, M., Valeeva, A., Shavrina, T., Smurov, I., Tutubalina, E. V., & Artemova, E. (2022) · Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies · doi:10.28995/2075-7182-2022-21-497-511 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“(Ippolito et al., 2020) compare human raters and automatic classifiers depending on the decoding strategy.”
BackgroundMethodGenerative AI and Perceptual Harms: Who's Suspected of using LLMs?
Kadoma, K., Metaxa, D., & Naaman, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713897 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Notably, this decrease in trust is true despite extensive literature showing that most people cannot reliably differentiate between human-written text and AI-generated text [11, 15, 35, 38].”
Few-shot Controllable Style Transfer for Low-Resource Multilingual Settings
Krishna, K., Nathani, D., Garcia, X., Samanta, B., & Talukdar, P. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.514 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“However, the original paper does not evaluate performance on Indic languages and the grammars for Indic languages would need to collected / built. models are known to produce fluent text as perceived by humans (Ippolito et al., 2020; Akoury et al., 2020), reducing the need for this evaluation.”
BackgroundMosca, E., Abdalla, M. H. I., Basso, P., Musumeci, M., & Groh, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.trustnlp-1.17 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“…have focused on utilizing hand-crafted features (Gehrmann et al., 2019), bag-of-words features (Fagni et al., 2021), or neural features in combination with supervised models to distinguish between human and machine-generated content (Bakhtin et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2019; Fagni et al., 2021).”
BackgroundOn the Zero-Shot Generalization of Machine-Generated Text Detectors
Xiao, P., Zhang, J., Han, X., Tsvetkov, Y., & He, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.318 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Token-modification adversarial attacks for natural language processing: A survey
Roth, T., Gao, Y., Abuadbba, A., Nepal, ., & Liu, W. (2024) · AI Communications · doi:10.3233/aic-230279 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Can attention detect AI-generated text? A novel Benford's law-based approach
Wang, Z., Xu, G., & Ren, M. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104139 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Madani, M., Motameni, H., & Mohamadi, H. (2022) · Security and Privacy · doi:10.1002/spy2.264 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“…be a consistency between the sentiments in the body and title of a news samples and; the majority of fake news nowadays is generated by machines, 55 with the news body and title misaligned, this paper determines if the sentiment analysis of the news body and title (if present in the dataset)…”
BackgroundUnsupervised and Distributional Detection of Machine-Generated TextPreprint
Gallé, M., Rozen, J., Kruszewski, G., & Elsahar, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02878 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Similarly, using the probability distribution directly to sample from it is also seldom used: while it mimicks the unigram distribution of tokens very accurately, it often generates incoherent text and makes it therefore easy for humans to detect (Ippolito et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodAutomatic Detection of Bot-generated Tweets
Tourille, J., Sow, B., & Popescu, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Multimedia AI against Disinformation · doi:10.1145/3512732.3533584 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“This format is ideal for text generation algorithms because short texts written by bots are more difficult to distinguish from human-generated ones compared to longer texts [9].”
BackgroundDecoding Methods for Neural Narrative Generation
DeLucia, A., Mueller, A., Li, X. L., & Sedoc, J. (2021) · Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics (GEM) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.gem-1.16 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“We focus on nucleus sampling, as it has tended to be a more effective decoding method in various response generation settings (Zhang et al., 2020a; Ippolito et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodControllable Fake Document Infilling for Cyber Deception
Hu, Y., Yu, L., Parolin, E. S., Khan, L. R., & Hamlen, K. W. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.486 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 1808-1822
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1911.00650
- OpenAlex
- W3021153741
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13
- FWCI
- 11.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-19-2-1004, FA8750)
- 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, decoding strategies, top-k sampling, nucleus sampling, random sampling, human raters, text generation evaluation
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
