Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Tools

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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

arxiv 2310.01423 v1 pith:K6PWYE37 submitted 2023-09-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Arslan Akram This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords toolschatgptdatasettextacrossaigccreatedeffective
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Since ChatGPT has emerged as a major AIGC model, providing high-quality responses across a wide range of applications (including software development and maintenance), it has attracted much interest from many individuals. ChatGPT has great promise, but there are serious problems that might arise from its misuse, especially in the realms of education and public safety. Several AIGC detectors are available, and they have all been tested on genuine text. However, more study is needed to see how effective they are for multi-domain ChatGPT material. This study aims to fill this need by creating a multi-domain dataset for testing the state-of-the-art APIs and tools for detecting artificially generated information used by universities and other research institutions. A large dataset consisting of articles, abstracts, stories, news, and product reviews was created for this study. The second step is to use the newly created dataset to put six tools through their paces. Six different artificial intelligence (AI) text identification systems, including "GPTkit," "GPTZero," "Originality," "Sapling," "Writer," and "Zylalab," have accuracy rates between 55.29 and 97.0%. Although all the tools fared well in the evaluations, originality was particularly effective across the board.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding the Ability of LLMs to Handle Character-Level Perturbation

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs remain surprisingly accurate on math and coding when invisible Unicode noise is inserted after every character, with robustness driven by implicit internal denoising and, for some models, explicit rewriting in ch...

  2. CodeMirage: A Multi-Lingual Benchmark for Detecting AI-Generated and Paraphrased Source Code from Production-Level LLMs

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CodeMirage is a ten-language, ten-LLM benchmark with original and paraphrased AI code, and it shows current AI-generated-code detectors drop sharply under cross-model and low-false-alarm settings.

  3. Assessing GPTZero's Accuracy in Identifying AI vs. Human-Written Essays

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a 78-essay test, GPTZero detected all 28 AI-written essays but falsely flagged 8 of 50 human essays as AI.

Pith tools