REVIEW 2 cited by
Machine-Generated Text Localization
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
Machine-Generated Text (MGT) detection aims to identify a piece of text as machine or human written. Prior work has primarily formulated MGT detection as a binary classification task over an entire document, with limited work exploring cases where only part of a document is machine generated. This paper provides the first in-depth study of MGT that localizes the portions of a document that were machine generated. Thus, if a bad actor were to change a key portion of a news article to spread misinformation, whole document MGT detection may fail since the vast majority is human written, but our approach can succeed due to its granular approach. A key challenge in our MGT localization task is that short spans of text, e.g., a single sentence, provides little information indicating if it is machine generated due to its short length. To address this, we leverage contextual information, where we predict whether multiple sentences are machine or human written at once. This enables our approach to identify changes in style or content to boost performance. A gain of 4-13% mean Average Precision (mAP) over prior work demonstrates the effectiveness of approach on five diverse datasets: GoodNews, VisualNews, WikiText, Essay, and WP. We release our implementation at https://github.com/Zhongping-Zhang/MGT_Localization.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI Coauthoring
Current machine-generated text detectors, especially metric-based ones, perform poorly on word-level detection in coauthored texts, while finetuned DeBERTa achieves strong but imperfect performance.
-
Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?
In a lab deepfake-detection task, students shifted more toward ChatGPT's advice than toward peers' advice (weight-of-advice 0.59 vs 0.33), though in 2025 sessions they trusted linguistic experts slightly more than ChatGPT.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.