REVIEW 1 cited by
Benchmarking of LLM Detection: Comparing Two Competing Approaches
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
Benchmarking of LLM Detection: Comparing Two Competing Approaches
read the original abstract
This article gives an overview of the field of LLM text recognition. Different approaches and implemented detectors for the recognition of LLM-generated text are presented. In addition to discussing the implementations, the article focuses on benchmarking the detectors. Although there are numerous software products for the recognition of LLM-generated text, with a focus on ChatGPT-like LLMs, the quality of the recognition (recognition rate) is not clear. Furthermore, while it can be seen that scientific contributions presenting their novel approaches strive for some kind of comparison with other approaches, the construction and independence of the evaluation dataset is often not comprehensible. As a result, discrepancies in the performance evaluation of LLM detectors are often visible due to the different benchmarking datasets. This article describes the creation of an evaluation dataset and uses this dataset to investigate the different detectors. The selected detectors are benchmarked against each other.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation
A matched four-regime benchmark shows AI-text detectors catch direct LLM output but lose most of their recall on human text rewritten by an LLM.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.