PreprintCited by 25Authorship Attribution and ProfilingArtificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Education

Open access
Zeng, Zijie, Sha, Lele, Li, Yuheng, Yang, Kaixun, Gašević, Dragan, Chen, Guanliang·2023·arXiv

Abstract

The recent large language models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, have been able to generate human-like and fluent responses when provided with specific instructions. While admitting the convenience brought by technological advancement, educators also have concerns that students might leverage LLMs to complete their writing assignments and pass them off as their original work. Although many AI content detection studies have been conducted as a result of such concerns, most of these prior studies modeled AI content detection as a classification problem, assuming that a text is either entirely human-written or entirely AI-generated. In this study, we investigated AI content detection in a rarely explored yet realistic setting where the text to be detected is collaboratively written by human and generative LLMs (i.e., hybrid text). We first formalized the detection task as identifying the transition points between human-written content and AI-generated content from a given hybrid text (boundary detection). Then we proposed a two-step approach where we (1) separated AI-generated content from human-written content during the encoder training process; and (2) calculated the distances between every two adjacent prototypes and assumed that the boundaries exist between the two adjacent prototypes that have the furthest distance from each other. Through extensive experiments, we observed the following main findings: (1) the proposed approach consistently outperformed the baseline methods across different experiment settings; (2) the encoder training process can significantly boost the performance of the proposed approach; (3) when detecting boundaries for single-boundary hybrid essays, the proposed approach could be enhanced by adopting a relatively large prototype size, leading to a 22% improvement in the In-Domain evaluation and an 18% improvement in the Out-of-Domain evaluation.

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.2307.12267

Cites

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

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

References 32 · Cited by 25

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Abid, A.; Farooqi, M.; and Zou, J. 2021. Persistent anti- muslim bias in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 298-306.
  2. Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877- 1901.
  3. Liu, Q.; Kusner, M. J.; and Blunsom, P. 2020. A survey on contextual embeddings. Lyu, Q.; Tan, J.; Zapadka, M. E.; Ponnatapura, J.; Niu, C.; Myers, K. J.; Wang, G.; and Whitlow, C. T. 2023a. Trans- lating radiology reports into plain language using ChatGPT and GPT-4 with prompt learning: results, limitations, and potential. Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art, 6(1): 9.
  4. Snell, J.; Swersky, K.; and Zemel, R. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 4080-4090.
  5. Wang, J.-H.; Liu, T.-W.; Luo, X.; and Wang, L. 2018. An LSTM approach to short text sentiment classification with word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 30th conference on computational linguistics and speech processing (ROCLING 2018), 214-223.
  6. Zellers, R.; Holtzman, A.; Rashkin, H.; Bisk, Y.; Farhadi, A.; Roesner, F.; and Choi, Y. 2019. Defending against neu- ral fake news. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.

Authors
Zeng, Z., Sha, L., Li, Y., Yang, K., Gašević, D., & Chen, G.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
38
Issue
20
Pages
22502-22510
ISSN
2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393146362
Cited by
25
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
5.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, hybrid texts, boundary detection, human-AI collaboration, large language models, ChatGPT, student essays

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