REVIEW 3 cited by
Who Wrote This? The Key to Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detection Is GECScore
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The efficacy of detectors for texts generated by large language models (LLMs) substantially depends on the availability of large-scale training data. However, white-box zero-shot detectors, which require no such data, are limited by the accessibility of the source model of the LLM-generated text. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective black-box zero-shot detection approach based on the observation that, from the perspective of LLMs, human-written texts typically contain more grammatical errors than LLM-generated texts. This approach involves calculating the Grammar Error Correction Score (GECScore) for the given text to differentiate between human-written and LLM-generated text. Experimental results show that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot and supervised methods, achieving an average AUROC of 98.62% across XSum and Writing Prompts dataset. Additionally, our approach demonstrates strong reliability in the wild, exhibiting robust generalization and resistance to paraphrasing attacks. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/NLP2CT/GECScore.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
MAGA-Bench: Machine-Augment-Generated Text via Alignment Detection Benchmark
Adding human-alignment augmentation (roleplaying, BPO, self-refine, RLDF) to machine-generated text both fools existing detectors and improves the generalization of detectors fine-tuned on it.
-
Benchmarking the Detection of LLMs-Generated Modern Chinese Poetry
A new modern Chinese poetry detection benchmark shows most current AI-text detectors are unreliable, particularly when LLMs imitate a human style.
-
WETBench: A Benchmark for Detecting Task-Specific Machine-Generated Text on Wikipedia
WETBench shows that existing machine-generated text detectors, particularly zero-shot methods, underperform on task-specific Wikipedia editing scenarios, with supervised detectors averaging 78% accuracy and zero-shot ...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.