PreprintCited by 25Authorship Attribution and ProfilingMisinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing Detection

Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelines

Open access
Kumarage, Tharindu, Garland, Joshua, Bhattacharjee, Amrita, Trapeznikov, Kirill, Ruston, Scott, Liu, Huan·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Recent advancements in pre-trained language models have enabled convenient methods for generating human-like text at a large scale. Though these generation capabilities hold great potential for breakthrough applications, it can also be a tool for an adversary to generate misinformation. In particular, social media platforms like Twitter are highly susceptible to AI-generated misinformation. A potential threat scenario is when an adversary hijacks a credible user account and incorporates a natural language generator to generate misinformation. Such threats necessitate automated detectors for AI-generated tweets in a given user's Twitter timeline. However, tweets are inherently short, thus making it difficult for current state-of-the-art pre-trained language model-based detectors to accurately detect at what point the AI starts to generate tweets in a given Twitter timeline. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm using stylometric signals to aid detecting AI-generated tweets. We propose models corresponding to quantifying stylistic changes in human and AI tweets in two related tasks: Task 1 - discriminate between human and AI-generated tweets, and Task 2 - detect if and when an AI starts to generate tweets in a given Twitter timeline. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that the stylometric features are effective in augmenting the state-of-the-art AI-generated text detectors.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.03697

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kumarage et al. constructed an in-house dataset employing GPT-2 to generate text and compared it with human-generated content.

    “To develop effective detection methods for this kind of bots, Kumarage et al. construct an in-house dataset employing GPT-2 to generate text and compare it with human-generated content (Kumarage et al., 2023).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Kumarage et al., 2023

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 25

Authors
Kumarage, T., Garland, J., Bhattacharjee, A., Trapeznikov, K., Ruston, S., & Liu, H.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Systems and Technology Research (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4323650731
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, stylometry, Twitter, misinformation, stylometric features, pre-trained language models, social media security, account hacking

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