GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Content
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a novel approach for detecting ChatGPT-generated vs. human-written text using language models. To this end, we first collected and released a pre-processed dataset named OpenGPTText, which consists of rephrased content generated using ChatGPT. We then designed, implemented, and trained two different models for text classification, using Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach (RoBERTa) and Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer (T5), respectively. Our models achieved remarkable results, with an accuracy of over 97% on the test dataset, as evaluated through various metrics. Furthermore, we conducted an interpretability study to showcase our model's ability to extract and differentiate key features between human-written and ChatGPT-generated text. Our findings provide important insights into the effective use of language models to detect generated text.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When AIGC detection is solved from zero-shot detection methods, a dataset may not be required for training.
“However, when AIGC detection is solved from other approaches, such as zero-shot detection methods, a dataset may not be required for training [87].”
From Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integrity (2024) · cites this paper as [87]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A 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
A 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
Quantifying 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
“Li et al. (2023) build a wild testbed by gathering texts from various human writings and deepfake texts generated by different LLMs. Notably, the application of contrastive and adversarial learning techniques has enhanced classifier robustness (Liu et al., 2022; Bhattacharjee et al., 2023; Hu et…”
Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges
Huang, B., Chen, C., & Shu, K. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3715073.3715076 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“Additionally, neural network-based models like BERT (Ippolito et al., 2020), Radar (Hu et al., 2023), and GPT-sentinel (Chen et al., 2023a) can also be applied.”
Yang, Z., Feng, Z., Huo, R., Lin, H., Zheng, H., Nie, R., & Chen, H. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126694 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Pudasaini, S., Miralles-Pechuán, L., Lillis, D., & Salvador, M. L. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.13105 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“…as training classifiers, watermarking, and zero-shot approaches, have been developed to detect text generated from LLMs. Based on these approaches, algorithms such as DetectGPT [18], RADAR [19], Ghostbuster [20], GPT-Sentinel [21] amongst others are being developed to identify AI-generated content.”
Method
- Authors
- Chen, Y., Kang, H., Zhai, V., Li, L., Singh, R., & Raj, B.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.07969
- OpenAlex
- W4376652802
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- AI-generated text detection, human-written vs machine-generated text, RoBERTa, T5, text classification, interpretability, 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
