CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 35Authorship Attribution and ProfilingAcademic integrity and plagiarismDigital Media Forensic Detection

Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Text

Open access
Weber-Wulff, Debora, Anohina-Naumeca, Alla, Bjelobaba, Sonja, Foltýnek, Tomáš, Guerrero-Dib, Jean, Popoola, Olumide, Šigut, Petr, Waddington, Lorna·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.15666arXiv 2306.15666
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for artificial intelligence generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.15666

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Aydın Ö, Karaarslan E (2022) OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare. In: Aydın Ö (Ed.), Emerging Computer Technologies 2 (pp. 22-31). İzmir Akademi Dernegi.
  2. Bjelobaba S (2020) Academic Integrity Teacher Training: Preventive Pedagogical Practices on the Course Level. In Khan, Z., Hill, C. & Foltýnek T. (Eds.), Integrity in Education for Future Happiness (pp. 9-18). Mendel University in Brno. http://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2020/bjelobaba.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2023.
  3. Borji, A. (2023). A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures. arXiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2302.03494. · DOI
  4. Clarke R, Lancaster T (2006) Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. In: Proceedings of Second International Plagiarism Conference Newcastle, UK. Pre-print available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228367576\_Eliminating\_the\_successor\_to\_plagiari sm\_Identifying\_the\_usage\_of\_contract\_cheating\_sites.
  5. Devlin J, Chang M-W, Lee K, Toutanova K (2019) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1 (pp. 4171-4186). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. ICML (2023) ICML 2023 Call For Papers, Fortieth International Conference on Machine Learning. https://icml.cc/Conferences/2023/CallForPapers. Accessed 14 June 2023.
  7. Ippolito D, Duckworth D, Callison-Burch C, Eck D (2020) Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.1808-1822). doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.164/. · DOI
  8. Liyanage V, Buscaldi D, Nazarenko A (2022) A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publications. In: Proceedings of the 13 th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 4692-4700). European Language Resources Association.
  9. Rosenfeld R (2000) Two decades of statistical language modeling: Where do we go from here? In: Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8):1270-1278. doi:10.1109/5.880083t. · DOI
  10. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, Kaiser L, Polosukhin I (2017) Attention is all you need. In: Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, USA. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper. pdf. Accessed 8 May 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L.
Affiliations
  • HTW Berlin - University of Applied Sciences (DE)
  • Riga Technical University (LV)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • University of Monterrey (MX)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.15666
arXiv
2306.15666
OpenAlex
W4382498767
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, ChatGPT, large language models, machine translation, Turnitin, academic integrity, generative AI in 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