The DOI matches its DataCite record; 29 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
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
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 54,325 · cited 3×
“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×
“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×
“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
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×
“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×
“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×
“(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 955 · cited 2×
“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”
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 784 · cited 2×
“, 2019), and Transformer-DMCA (Liu et al., 2018) are a few examples of large, publicly available models with this ability.”
Background
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
Items 201–267 of 267
Erkennungsverfahren für KI-generierte Texte: Überblick und Architekturentwurf
Pröhl, T., Mohrhardt, R., Förster, N., Putzier, E., & Zarnekow, R. (2024) · HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik · doi:10.1365/s40702-024-01051-w · Cited by 1
CREATIVE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW IDEAS
International Science Group, & Vladlenov, D. (2024) · doi:10.46299/isg.p.2024.1.19
Plausibel, aber unwahr: Sozialisation und Wahrscheinlichkeitspapageien
Bellon, J. (2024) · Techno:Phil · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68021-6_8
Narrative Simplification in Human and AI Retelling
Tanaka, Y., & Hashimoto, Y. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825960
“Research by Ippolito et al. [15] showed that while it is becoming difficult to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated texts, BERT-based classifiers can detect AI-generated texts with higher accuracy than humans.”
On Text Granularity and Metric Frameworks for Large Language Model Content Detection
Le, L., & Tran, D. T. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825505
“The first approach in detection of LLM texts is to use supervised classifiers [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].”
Ai Bias for Creative Writing: Subjective Assessment Versus Willingness to PayPreprint
Abel, M., & Johnson, R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5118633 · Cited by 2
“Recent evidence suggests that AI may even be perceived as “more human than human” [9, 1, 8].”
Detection avoidance techniques for large language models
Schneider, S., Steuber, F., Schneider, J., & Rodosek, G. D. (2025) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2025.6
Enhancing the robustness of Fast-DetectGPT against paraphrase attacks
Li, S. (2024) · International Conference on Computers and Artificial Intelligence Technology (CAIT) · doi:10.1109/cait64506.2024.10962860
“…such as Likelihood (mean log probabilities), Rank (mean token ranks when arranged in descending order by probabilities), LogRank (average log of ranks), Entropy (mean token entropy of the predictive distribution) [15], [18], [24], and LRR (an amalgamation of log probability and log-rank) [26].”
Chen, P., & Liu, S. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76770-8_16
Enhancing Domain Generalization for Robust Machine-Generated Text Detection
Park, S., Han, S., & Cha, M. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3581694 · Cited by 1
“Someearly detectionmethodshaveleveragedtherelativelylowerentropy inthesubsequenttokenprobabilitydistributionofmachine-generatedtext,andhavesuggestedanalyzingstatisticalmetrics suchassentenceperplexity[7],[8],[9].”
Machine-Human Boundary: A Systematic Survey of Machine-Generated Text Detection
Zhang, Q. (2025) · International Conference on Communications, Information System and Computer Engineering (CISCE) · doi:10.1109/cisce65916.2025.11065851
“The use of visual aids such as GLTR and training the evaluator has been shown to be effective ways to increase the accuracy of detecting MGT [22].”
Text Generator and Text Discriminator for NIST GenAI T2T Challenge
Sarker, S., Qian, L., & Dong, X. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Control (AIRC) · doi:10.1109/airc64931.2025.11077532
Evaluating the Accuracy of AI Content DetectorsPreprint
YILDIZ, F. E., Karaarslan, E., & Aydın, Ö. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5364392
A Word Embeddings and Stylistic Features based Approach for Generative AI Authorship Verification
Rao, T. K., Raju, K. U., Krishna, V. S. R., Chanti, S., & Kavuri, K. (2025) · International Conference on Electronics, AI and Computing (EAIC) · doi:10.1109/eaic66483.2025.11101533
“Conventional approaches depend on surface-level features like stylistic components, syntactic patterns, and word frequency, while advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) may readily imitate these features [4, 5].”
Peng, Z., Fu, J., Zou, L., Zheng, L., Ren, Y., & Peng, G. (2025) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.108025
“• Comparison detection methods. we choose the following zero-shot detection methods: Log [49], RankLog, Entropy [50], Rank [51], and ONION [14].”
Amplifying Training Data Exposure Through Fine-Tuning With Pseudo-Labeled Memberships
Oh, M. G., Ahn, H. E., Park, L. H., & Kwon, T. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2025.3613882 · Cited by 1
“Among the extensive prior research addressing this issue [21], [28], [80], we focus on a popular zero-shot machine-generated text detection strategy called DetectGPT [44].”
Ensemble Approach for Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Machine Learning Models
Pardey, M. A., & Ghode, S. D. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92854-3_14
GenDetect-GAN: generative adversarial network model for machine-generated text detection
Xu, B., Yu, W., Wen, Q., Cui, Q., & Qi, J. (2025) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-025-06898-0
Exploring Generalized Features For LLM-Generated Text Detection
Wang, J., Liu, B., Miao, C., Wang, Y., Gong, T., Chu, Q., Zou, Q., Zhang, D., & Yu, N. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3729-7_25
When Less is More: Minimal Prompts with LoRA for LLM Text Detection
Wang, S., Fang, R., Li, M., He, Z., & Song, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3352-7_22
Unmasking AI-Written Content: A Novel Hybrid Kernel and Transformer-Based Detection Framework
Zaki, N., Alderei, R., Alketbi, M., Alkaabi, A., Alneyadi, F., & Zaki, N. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icmlc66258.2025.11280068
“Ippolito et al. [11] found that human evaluators often fail to detect AI-generated content when it is grammatically correct and topically relevant.”
Wang, Z., Ren, Y., Zhao, G., Zhu, X., Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3352-7_23
A Comprehensive Survey of Machine-Generated Text Detection
孙, 一. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Research · doi:10.12677/airr.2026.151005
Shafi, T. B., Siddique, T., Tasnim, F., Chowdhury, S. J., Chowdhury, M. S., Mahmud, T., Deb, K., Hossain, M. S., & Hanip, A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11355-9_8 · Cited by 1
MFGAF: Multi-faceted Granular Analysis Framework for LLM-Generated Text Detection
Chen, J. J., & Wang, H. (2025) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc58881.2025.11343576
“First, feature-based methods rely on model output logits or losses, but such information is often inaccessible in commercial LLM services, leading to surrogate-based approximations and performance limitations [6], [7].”
Can We Distinguish? A Deep Learning Approach to AI-Generated Content Detection
Liang, Y., & Liu, M. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom66490.2025.00084
“Ippolito et al. [9] extended this approach by incorporating entropy-based measures, showing that simple statistical tests could achieve reasonable performance on early models.”
DetectLLM: A Multimodal Fusion Approach for Detecting LLM-Generated Text
Soni, R., Misra, R. N., & Mukopadhyay, S. (2025) · International Conference on AI-ML Systems (AIMLSystems) · doi:10.1109/aimlsystems67835.2025.11387030
“Classifier-based approaches use supervised learning to delineate between human-composed and machine-authored text [22], [26]–[30].”
Detecting AI-Generated Text, Images, and Videos: A Review of Methods and Emerging Frameworks
Kaur, D. G., Deep, A., Rauniyar, S., Singh, A. K., & Sarswat, C. (2025) · International Conference on Advancement in Electronics & Communication Engineering (AECE) · doi:10.1109/aece67531.2025.11386722 · Cited by 1
“Courts in other instances have been presented with fake testimony by an AI [1]-[3].”
InfluentialSynthetic-Text Detection Using Deep Learning – An Ensemble Practical Comparative Analysis
Akhil, P., Sharma, R. S., & Mallikharjuna Rao, K. (2025) · IEEE India Conference · doi:10.1109/indicon68490.2025.11392857
Modelos clásicos vs. Transformers en la detección de texto generado
Espín-Riofrio, C., Morán, V. D. R. M., Vergara-Bello, O., Bazurto-Velasco, L., & Guim-Echeverria, Y. (2026) · Revista Científica Ciencia y Método · doi:10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n1/163
Designing a Framework for Deepfake Text Detection Using Multi Model Ensembling Techniques
Ahmed, M., Malik, K., & Indra, G. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Recent Advances in Computing and Systems (REACS) · doi:10.1109/reacs67479.2025.11413468
“But at the same time, they raise concerns like misinformation, phishing and social engineering attacks [2][3].”
The dual-encoder detector for AI-generated go code
Liao, G., Hou, Y., Chai, L., Yue, Q., Zhang, Q., Han, W., & Ou, W. (2026) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s44443-026-00626-5
“Log-Rank (Ippolito et al. 2020): This method performs a logarithmic transformation on word ranking values to calculate scores, and determines whether the text is generated by AI based on the scores.”
Highly generalizable cross-domain machine-generated text detection
Xing, Y., Men, Y., Luo, S., Yang, Z., Zhou, J., & Pan, L. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.133426
Comparing the Humanness of Machine-Generated and Human-Authored Text
Toney, A., Bode, L., Ventura, T., Wilcox, E., & Singh, L. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3806206
“Additionally, only one study [79] included two distinct groups of annotators, using Amazon Mechanical Turk and university students and only one study [2] analyzed more than the English language (Arabic, Afrikaans, French, and Spanish).”
InfluentialShreesh, S., Daga, M., Parikh, D., Bommineni, K. R., Mishra, S., Naole, S., & Ramu, S. P. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Technology and Management for Social Innovation (IATMSI) · doi:10.1109/iatmsi68868.2026.11465628
“In their analysis of decoding strategies, Ippolito et al. [5] showed that although top-k sampling produces fluent text that frequently misleads human readers, it introduces statistical irregularities that BERT-based classifiers can easily detect.”
Chaffin, A. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5e4cd6f0z8697z4a0cz921dzd8592affa0a9
Détection des éléments générés automatiquement Contenu académique
Liyanage, V. P. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/80dff7a0z6e58z4151zb20cz6f0bc537ce85
LLMs Killed Q&A Stars? Analyzing the Impact of LLM-Generated Answers on an Online Q&A Platform
Shin, D., & Son, S. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792739
Cross-Lingual Detection of Machine-Generated Text Using Multilingual Transformers and Balanced Data
Sharimbayev, B., & Duisen, S. (2026) · International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation · doi:10.1109/icecco67619.2026.11488773
“Machine-generated texts have been found by Ippolito et al. to contain "repetitive structures or poorer patterns" that can be detected using statistical analysis [2].”
Modeling the structural and content parameters of the naturalness of a generated fairy tale
Drozhashchikh, N. V., & Владимирович, Е. О. (2026) · Филология научные исследования · doi:10.7256/2454-0749.2026.4.78845
Sinha, N., Saravindu, S., Maitra, T., & Giri, D. (2026) · International Conference on Emerging Systems and Intelligent Computing (ESIC) · doi:10.1109/esic68176.2026.11495939
Evaluating AI Detection Performance Across Writing Modalities in Engineering Interaction
Lestari, M. W., Ginting, A., Aminuddin, H., Cholish, C., & Hasnita, U. (2026) · Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v12i4.9637
“These categories are selected to reflect realistic academic writing conditions and to capture variability in writing modalities and production processes (Gehrmann et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2020).”
Identifying AI text input in English Second Language Writing by Sentiment Analysis
Senior, J., & Thompson, N. L. (2025) · International Conference on Business Intelligence for Technology Innovation (ICBITI) · doi:10.1109/icbiti65527.2025.11500760
Feature comparison between human-written and LLM-generated documents – a case study
Kutyła, M., Gryka, P., Kozłowski, M., Gradoń, K., & Janicki, A. (2026) · Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics · doi:10.1515/psicl-2025-0063
Detecting AI-Generated News: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning and Large Language Models
Ding, X. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Digital Media Technology and Social Computing (ICAIDS) · doi:10.1145/3806262.3806266
“This capability is particularly valuable in the detection of AI-generated news, as it allows models to identify subtle, systemic differences in language use, coherence, and stylistic consistency that may distinguish machine-generated content from human-authored journalism [12].”
Stacy, D., & Kong, L. (2026) · ACM Southeast Regional Conference (ACMSE) · doi:10.1145/3746467.3801525
Detecting Persona-Generated AI Text with Interpretable Linguistic Features
Slavova, E., Parfenova, A., & Pfeffer, J. (2026) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/3795513.3810453
“Despite these advances, challenges remain regarding sensitivity to adversarial edits and the fact that humans struggle to distinguish AI from human text [14].”
Liao, G., Chai, L., Hou, Y., & Yue, Q. (2026) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2026.05.047
Luo, T., Xu, W., & Tang, R. (2026) · Jisuanji shenghuojia. · doi:10.54097/qgwkw932
“However, instruction-tuned models trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback exhibit perplexity distributions considerably closer to human writing, reducing the effectiveness of simple likelihood-based detectors [12].”
LiMO: Line-level Machine-generated Code Detection for Diverse Programming Languages
Kim, T., Jang, H., Kim, S., Jin, Z., Kim, S., & Bak, J. (2026) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/3748522.3779718
“LogRank [11]: It computes the mean logarithm of token ranks, compressing extreme values and enhancing sensitivity to moderate rank differences.”
DualCodeDetect: Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Code Detection via Dual-Channel Perturbation
Li, Z., Shang, X., Fu, Z., Guo, S., Zhang, W., Yu, N., & Chen, K. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3808166
“• Entropy [18]: Measures the average predictive entropy of each token, with lower entropy indicating LLM-generated code.”
Detecting and Comparing LLM Capabilities to Human Writers Through Linguistic Analysis
Liebe, L., Baum, J. D., Cech, T., Scheibel, W., & Döllner, J. (2026) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-026-05131-0
False Positive Risk in AI Detection of L2 Academic Writing: A Case Study
Za’rour, R., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. (2026) · Discourses on Culture · doi:10.2478/doc-2026-0003 · Cited by 2
Tefke, T., & Staudemeyer, R. C. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32335-4_11
Modeling Cross-Paragraph Consistency for Few-Shot AI-Generated Text Detection: A Dual-Path Framework
Jiayi, X., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-3423-3_5
Rathi, S. R., Anturkar, A., Borde, A., Araj, V., & Mahajan, A. (2026) · OPJU International Technology Conference on Smart Computing for Innovation and Advancement in Industry (OTCON) · doi:10.1109/otcon69332.2026.11629638
“According to Ippolito et al. [11], in early AI-generated writing, a clear distinction in grammatical and statistical features could be observed in contrast to human-written text.”
Detecting AI-Generated Phishing Campaigns Using Linguistic Forensics and Machine Learning
Auyezov, A., Abdigali, A., Dota, Y., Zhunussov, K., & Nurzhaubaev, B. (2026) · International Conference on Cybersecurity, Digital Forensics, and AI Applications (ICCSDFAI) · doi:10.1109/iccsdfai70505.2026.11648017
“The dominant approaches to LLM text detection focus on news and academic writing contexts [3, 4] and do not address the adversarial characteristics of phishing content.”
Rehman, I. U., Satti, M. I., Rehman, M. Y., & Hussain, B. (2026) · Knowledge · doi:10.3390/knowledge6030022
“Further research by [10] showed a surprising result that automatic detectors work best when automatically generated text is really close to human-written, which suggests some inherent limitations for surface feature-based methods.”
Islait, R., & Alhawamdeh, M. M. (2026) · IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies · doi:10.1109/aeect69724.2026.11657814
“This means we need to find ways to detect these papers to keep the record honest [1], [2].”
Combining probabilistic features and semantic features for AI-Generated text detection
Yu, Y., & Gao, W. (2026) · International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) · doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v14i09.ec01
A Multi-stage Framework for Detection and Attribution of LLM-Generated Text
Long, V. M. T., Chan, R. C. B., & Truong-Huu, T. (2026) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-37274-1_5
LLM-generated scientific content detection method
Bader, A., & Alhijawi, B. (2026) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-026-12465-6
Wang, X. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Digital Media and Education · doi:10.1145/3839592.3839722
“Early approaches to detecting AI-generated text are based on detecting statistical features, including perplexity, burstiness, and token probability distributions (Gehrmann et al. [5], 2019; Ippolito et al., 2020 [7]; Mitchell et al., 2023 [14]; Mitchell et al., 2023 [16], Radford et al., 2019 [3]).”
AI-generated language remains systematically distinguishable from human communication
Pagan, N., Törnberg, P., Bail, C. A., & Barrie, C. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2531748123 · Cited by 10
Multi-level Text Feature Analysis for Detecting AI-Generated Content
Yan, L., Ye, H., Pan, T., & Ihnaini, B. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28457-0_9
Varquez, C. F. C., Epis, S. N., Maratas, R. P., Docena, F. V., Ram, M. L., & Malangsa, R. D. (2026) · International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC) · doi:10.1109/icosec70158.2026.11735785
“Ippolito et al. [12] subsequently demonstrated that automated classifiers can outperform human raters at identifying generated text, particularly as model fluency increases.”
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Metadata
- 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
