PreprintCited by 233Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

Game of Tones: Faculty detection of GPT-4 generated content in university assessments

Open access
Perkins, Mike, Roe, Jasper, Postma, Darius, McGaughran, James, Hickerson, Don·2023·arXiv

Preprint — published as 10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Paper page

Abstract

This study explores the robustness of university assessments against the use of Open AI's Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) generated content and evaluates the ability of academic staff to detect its use when supported by the Turnitin Artificial Intelligence (AI) detection tool. The research involved twenty-two GPT-4 generated submissions being created and included in the assessment process to be marked by fifteen different faculty members. The study reveals that although the detection tool identified 91% of the experimental submissions as containing some AI-generated content, the total detected content was only 54.8%. This suggests that the use of adversarial techniques regarding prompt engineering is an effective method in evading AI detection tools and highlights that improvements to AI detection software are needed. Using the Turnitin AI detect tool, faculty reported 54.5% of the experimental submissions to the academic misconduct process, suggesting the need for increased awareness and training into these tools. Genuine submissions received a mean score of 54.4, whereas AI-generated content scored 52.3, indicating the comparable performance of GPT-4 in real-life situations. Recommendations include adjusting assessment strategies to make them more resistant to the use of AI tools, using AI-inclusive assessment where possible, and providing comprehensive training programs for faculty and students. This research contributes to understanding the relationship between AI-generated content and academic assessment, urging further investigation to preserve academic integrity.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.18081

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?

  • This is just the second study to evaluate the effectiveness of publicly available AI text detectors in identifying documents generated by ChatGPT-4.

    “This is just the second study to evaluate the effectiveness of publicly available AI text detectors in identifying documents generated by ChatGPT-4.(Perkins et al., 2023, was the first.)”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 233

Authors
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D.
Affiliations
  • British University Vietnam (VN)
  • James Cook University Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Perkins, Mike
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
89-113
ISSN
1570-1727 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388108480
Cited by
233
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 9
FWCI
58.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Academic Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
generative AI detection, AI-generated text, academic integrity, academic misconduct, university evaluation, ChatGPT, prompting techniques, higher education

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