Cited by 108Authorship Attribution and ProfilingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDigital Media Forensic Detection

Feature-based detection of automated language models: tackling GPT-2, GPT-3 and Grover

Open access
Fröhling, Leon, Zubiaga, Arkaitz·2021·PeerJ Computer Science

Abstract

The recent improvements of language models have drawn much attention to potential cases of use and abuse of automatically generated text. Great effort is put into the development of methods to detect machine generations among human-written text in order to avoid scenarios in which the large-scale generation of text with minimal cost and effort undermines the trust in human interaction and factual information online. While most of the current approaches rely on the availability of expensive language models, we propose a simple feature-based classifier for the detection problem, using carefully crafted features that attempt to model intrinsic differences between human and machine text. Our research contributes to the field in producing a detection method that achieves performance competitive with far more expensive methods, offering an accessible "first line-of-defense" against the abuse of language models. Furthermore, our experiments show that different sampling methods lead to different types of flaws in generated text.

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

Crossref · 10.7717/peerj-cs.443

Cites

49 of 49 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

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?

  • Quantitative comparisons have looked mainly at basic grammar and syntax or features such as word choice, punctuation, and sentence length, finding evidence of some differences between human- and LLM-written text.

    “So far, quantitative comparisons have looked mainly at basic grammar and syntax (5) or features such as word choice, punctuation, sentence length, and so on, finding evidence of some differences between human- and LLM-written text (10–14).”
  • There are structural differences between human- and LLM-written text.

    “Though not definitive, these results suggest there are indeed structural differences between human- and LLM-written text.”
  • Detectors for machine-created text may potentially discriminate against EFL students by incorrectly identifying human created text as machine written.

    “highlight the ethical challenges of deploying any such detectors which may potentially discriminate against EFL students by incorrectly identifying human created text as machine written”
  • AI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing.

    “AI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying the knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing [32-35].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Thorne J Vlachos A 2018 Automated fact checking: task formulations, methods and future directions Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 3346 3359
  2. Vaswani A Shazeer N Parmar N Uszkoreit J Jones L Gomez AN Kaiser Ł Polosukhin I 2017 Attention is all you need Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5998 6008

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fröhling, L., & Zubiaga, A.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz University Hannover (DE)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Fröhling, Leon
Venue
PeerJ Computer Science
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2021-04-06
Volume
7
Pages
e443
ISSN
2376-5992 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3139815689
Cited by
106
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 6
FWCI
5.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PeerJ Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of Leibniz Universität Hannover (Leibniz Universität Hannover) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Repository of Leibniz Universität Hannover (Leibniz Universität Hannover) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leibniz Universität Hannover (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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, feature-based classifiers, GPT-2, GPT-3, GROVER, sampling methods

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