CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Authorship Attribution and ProfilingDigital Media Forensic DetectionNatural Language Processing Techniques

GPT-who: An Information Density-based Machine-Generated Text Detector

Open access
Venkatraman, Saranya, Uchendu, Adaku, Lee, Dongwon·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.06202arXiv 2310.06202
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Uniform Information Density (UID) principle posits that humans prefer to spread information evenly during language production. We examine if this UID principle can help capture differences between Large Language Models (LLMs)-generated and human-generated texts. We propose GPT-who, the first psycholinguistically-inspired domain-agnostic statistical detector. This detector employs UID-based features to model the unique statistical signature of each LLM and human author for accurate detection. We evaluate our method using 4 large-scale benchmark datasets and find that GPT-who outperforms state-of-the-art detectors (both statistical- & non-statistical) such as GLTR, GPTZero, DetectGPT, OpenAI detector, and ZeroGPT by over $20$% across domains. In addition to better performance, it is computationally inexpensive and utilizes an interpretable representation of text articles. We find that GPT-who can distinguish texts generated by very sophisticated LLMs, even when the overlying text is indiscernible. UID-based measures for all datasets and code are available at https://github.com/saranya-venkatraman/gpt-who.

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.2310.06202

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 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

  • Model evaluation for extreme risks

    Shevlane, T., Farquhar, S., Garfinkel, B., Phuong, M., Whittlestone, J., Leung, J., Kokotajlo, D., Marchal, N., Anderljung, M., Kolt, N., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15324 · Cited by 66 · cited 3× · see citing works

    “These include the generation of toxic and harmful content, like misinformation and terrorism recruitment (Shevlane et al., 2023; Zellers et al., 2019; Uchendu et al., 2021).”
    BackgroundMethod

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Ahmed Abbasi and Hsinchun Chen. 2008. Writeprints: A Stylometric Approach to Identity-Level Identifica- tion and Similarity Detection in Cyberspace. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 26(2):1- 29.
  2. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B Brown, Dawn Song, Ul- far Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models. In USENIX Security Symposium, volume 6.
  3. Souradip Chakraborty, Amrit Singh Bedi, Sicheng Zhu, Bang An, Dinesh Manocha, and Furong Huang. 2023. On the possibilities of ai-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04736. · arXiv
  4. Ameet Deshpande, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpuro- hit, Ashwin Kalyan, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1236-1270.
  5. Austin F Frank and T Florain Jaeger. 2008. Speaking ra- tionally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 30.
  6. Matthias Gallé, Jos Rozen, Germán Kruszewski, and Hady Elsahar. 2021. Unsupervised and distributional detection of machine-generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02878. · arXiv
  7. Sebastian Gehrmann, Hendrik Strobelt, and Alexan- der M Rush. 2019. GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 111-116.
  8. Xinlei He, Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2023. MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14822. · arXiv
  9. T Florian Jaeger. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cog- nitive Psychology, 61(1):23-62.
  10. T Florian Jaeger and Roger P Levy. 2007. Speakers opti- mize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, pages 849-856.
  11. Ayush Jain, Vishal Singh, Sidharth Ranjan, Rajakrish- nan Rajkumar, and Sumeet Agarwal. 2018. Uniform Information Density effects on syntactic choice in Hindi. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Linguis- tic Complexity and Natural Language Processing, pages 38-48, Santa Fe, New-Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Ganesh Jawahar, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and VS Laks Lakshmanan. 2020. Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2296-2309.
  13. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of Hal- lucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38.
  14. Jacob Devlin Ming-Wei Chang Kenton and Lee Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidi- rectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186.
  15. Laida Kushnareva, Daniil Cherniavskii, Vladislav Mikhailov, Ekaterina Artemova, Serguei Barannikov, Alexander Bernstein, Irina Piontkovskaya, Dmitri Pi- ontkovski, and Evgeny Burnaev. 2021. Artificial Text Detection via Examining the Topology of Attention Maps. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 635-649.
  16. Jooyoung Lee, Thai Le, Jinghui Chen, and Dongwon Lee. 2023. Do language models plagiarize? In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 3637-3647.
  17. Yafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi, Longyue Wang, Linyi Yang, Shuming Shi, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Deepfake Text Detection in the Wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13242. · arXiv
  18. Xiaoming Liu, Zhaohan Zhang, Yichen Wang, Yu Lan, and Chao Shen. 2022. CoCo: Coherence-Enhanced Machine-Generated Text Detection Under Data Lim- itation With Contrastive Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10341. · arXiv
  19. Yikang Liu, Ziyin Zhang, Wanyang Zhang, Shisen Yue, Xiaojing Zhao, Xinyuan Cheng, Yiwen Zhang, and Hai Hu. 2023a. ArguGPT: evaluating, understanding and identifying argumentative essays generated by GPT models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07666. · arXiv
  20. Zeyan Liu, Zijun Yao, Fengjun Li, and Bo Luo. 2023b. Check Me If You Can: Detecting ChatGPT- Generated Academic Writing using CheckGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05524. · arXiv
  21. Kyle Mahowald, Evelina Fedorenko, Steven T Pianta- dosi, and Edward Gibson. 2013. Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2):313-318.
  22. Clara Meister, Ryan Cotterell, and Tim Vieira. 2020. If beam search is the answer, what was the question? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2173-2185, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  23. Clara Meister, Tiago Pimentel, Patrick Haller, Lena Jäger, Ryan Cotterell, and Roger Levy. 2021. Revis- iting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 963-980.
  24. Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detec- tion using probability curvature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11305. · arXiv
  25. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  26. Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116. · arXiv
  27. Jiameng Pu, Zain Sarwar, Sifat Muhammad Abdullah, Abdullah Rehman, Yoonjin Kim, Parantapa Bhat- tacharya, Mobin Javed, and Bimal Viswanath. 2022. Deepfake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportu- nities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09421. · arXiv
  28. Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Aounon Kumar, Sriram Bala- subramanian, Wenxiao Wang, and Soheil Feizi. 2023. Can AI-generated text be reliably detected? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11156. · arXiv
  29. Claude E Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3):379-423.
  30. Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Rad- ford, Gretchen Krueger, Jong Wook Kim, Sarah Kreps, et al. 2019. Release Strategies and the So- cial Impacts of Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09203. · arXiv
  31. Jinyan Su, Terry Yue Zhuo, Di Wang, and Preslav Nakov. 2023. DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Informa- tion for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05540. · arXiv
  32. Harry Tily and Steven Piantadosi. 2009. Refer effi- ciently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridg- ing the gap between Computational and Empirical approaches to Reference.
  33. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
  34. Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, and Dongwon Lee. 2023. At- tribution and obfuscation of neural text authorship: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explo- rations Newsletter, 25(1):1-18.
  35. Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, Kai Shu, and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Authorship attribution for neural text gener- ation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8384-8395.
  36. Adaku Uchendu, Zeyu Ma, Thai Le, Rui Zhang, and Dongwon Lee. 2021. TURINGBENCH: A Bench- mark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neu- ral Text Generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2001-2016.
  37. Saranya Venkatraman, He He, and David Reitter. 2023. How do decoding algorithms distribute information in dialogue responses? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 923-932.
  38. Jason Wei, Clara Meister, and Ryan Cotterell. 2021. A Cognitive Regularizer for Language Modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5191- 5202.
  39. Qiufang Wen, Lifei Wang, and Maocheng Liang. 2005. Spoken and written English corpus of Chinese learn- ers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
  40. Yang Xu and David Reitter. 2016. Entropy converges between dialogue participants: Explanations from an information-theoretic perspective. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1:537-546.
  41. Xianjun Yang, Liangming Pan, Xuandong Zhao, Haifeng Chen, Linda Petzold, William Yang Wang, and Wei Cheng. 2023. A Survey on Detec- tion of LLMs-Generated Content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15654. · arXiv
  42. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Defending against neural fake news. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32.
  43. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. · arXiv
  44. Wanjun Zhong, Duyu Tang, Zenan Xu, Ruize Wang, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, Jiahai Wang, and Jian Yin. 2020. Neural Deepfake Detection with Factual Struc- ture of Text. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing (EMNLP), pages 2461-2470.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Venkatraman, S., Uchendu, A., & Lee, D.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • MIT Lincoln Laboratory (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
103-115
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.06202
arXiv
2310.06202
OpenAlex
W4401043138
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
FWCI
5.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1820609, 2131144, 1950491)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, large language models, psycholinguistics

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