Classification of Human- and AI-Generated Texts for English, French, German, and Spanish
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we analyze features to classify human- and AI-generated text for English, French, German and Spanish and compare them across languages. We investigate two scenarios: (1) The detection of text generated by AI from scratch, and (2) the detection of text rephrased by AI. For training and testing the classifiers in this multilingual setting, we created a new text corpus covering 10 topics for each language. For the detection of AI-generated text, the combination of all proposed features performs best, indicating that our features are portable to other related languages: The F1-scores are close with 99% for Spanish, 98% for English, 97% for German and 95% for French. For the detection of AI-rephrased text, the systems with all features outperform systems with other features in many cases, but using only document features performs best for German (72%) and Spanish (86%) and only text vector features leads to best results for English (78%).
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?
Results from Schaaff, Schlippe, and Mindner (2023) indicate that feature classifiers have poor robustness against ambiguous semantics and often underperform neural network features.
“The results from (Schaaff, Schlippe, and Mindner 2023) indicate that such feature classifiers have poor robustness against ambiguous semantics and often underperform neural network features.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Schaaff, Schlippe, and Mindner 2023
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Authors
- Schaaff, K., Schlippe, T., & Mindner, L.
- Affiliations
- IU International University of Applied Sciences (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Schaaff, Kristina
- Schlippe, Tim
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 935-956
- ISSN
- 1381-2416 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2312.04882
- OpenAlex
- W4404996504
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Speech Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- AI-generated text detection, large language models, perplexity, readability features, educational texts, news articles, cross-lingual text classification
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
