SMLT-MUGC: Small, Medium, and Large Texts -- Machine versus User-Generated Content Detection and Comparison

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12815v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:19:01 GMT
• Title: SMLT-MUGC: Small, Medium, and Large Texts -- Machine versus User-Generated Content Detection and Comparison
• Authors: Anjali Rawal, Hui Wang, Youjia Zheng, Yu-Hsuan Lin, Shanu Sushmita,
• Abstract summary: We compare the performance of machine learning algorithms on four datasets: (1) small (tweets from Election, FIFA, and Game of Thrones), (2) medium (Wikipedia introductions and PubMed abstracts), and (3) large (OpenAI web text dataset) Our results indicate that LLMs with very large parameters (such as the XL-1542 variant of GPT2 with 1542 million parameters) were harder to detect using traditional machine learning methods. We examine the characteristics of human and machine-generated texts across multiple dimensions, including linguistics, personality, sentiment, bias, and morality.
• Score: 2.7147912878168303
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have gained significant attention due to their ability to mimic human language. Identifying texts generated by LLMs is crucial for understanding their capabilities and mitigating potential consequences. This paper analyzes datasets of varying text lengths: small, medium, and large. We compare the performance of machine learning algorithms on four datasets: (1) small (tweets from Election, FIFA, and Game of Thrones), (2) medium (Wikipedia introductions and PubMed abstracts), and (3) large (OpenAI web text dataset). Our results indicate that LLMs with very large parameters (such as the XL-1542 variant of GPT2 with 1542 million parameters) were harder (74%) to detect using traditional machine learning methods. However, detecting texts of varying lengths from LLMs with smaller parameters (762 million or less) can be done with high accuracy (96% and above). We examine the characteristics of human and machine-generated texts across multiple dimensions, including linguistics, personality, sentiment, bias, and morality. Our findings indicate that machine-generated texts generally have higher readability and closely mimic human moral judgments but differ in personality traits. SVM and Voting Classifier (VC) models consistently achieve high performance across most datasets, while Decision Tree (DT) models show the lowest performance. Model performance drops when dealing with rephrased texts, particularly shorter texts like tweets. This study underscores the challenges and importance of detecting LLM-generated texts and suggests directions for future research to improve detection methods and understand the nuanced capabilities of LLMs.

Related papers

• GigaCheck: Detecting LLM-generated Content [72.27323884094953]
  In this work, we investigate the task of generated text detection by proposing the GigaCheck. Our research explores two approaches: (i) distinguishing human-written texts from LLM-generated ones, and (ii) detecting LLM-generated intervals in Human-Machine collaborative texts. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned general-purpose LLM in conjunction with a DETR-like detection model, adapted from computer vision, to localize artificially generated intervals within text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T08:30:55Z)
• Can Large Language Models Learn the Physics of Metamaterials? An Empirical Study with ChatGPT [9.177651206337005]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Gemini, LlaMa, and Claude are trained on massive quantities of text parsed from the internet. We present a LLM fine-tuned on up to 40,000 data that can predict electromagnetic spectra over a range of frequencies given a text prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T19:05:42Z)
• From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Content [17.306542392779445]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are celebrated for their ability to generate human-like text. This paper investigates "Cross-Model Detection," by evaluating whether a classifier trained to distinguish between source LLM-generated and human-written text can also detect text from a target LLM without further training. The research also explores Model Attribution, encompassing source model identification, model family, and model size classification, in addition to quantization and watermarking detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T09:51:37Z)
• The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluation [93.01964988474755]
  AutoMQM is a prompting technique which asks large language models to identify and categorize errors in translations. We study the impact of labeled data through in-context learning and finetuning. We then evaluate AutoMQM with PaLM-2 models, and we find that it improves performance compared to just prompting for scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T17:17:21Z)
• The Imitation Game: Detecting Human and AI-Generated Texts in the Era of ChatGPT and BARD [3.2228025627337864]
  We introduce a novel dataset of human-written and AI-generated texts in different genres. We employ several machine learning models to classify the texts. Results demonstrate the efficacy of these models in discerning between human and AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-22T21:00:14Z)
• LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Tool [119.0952092533317]
  Large language models (LLMs) are remarkably close to high-quality human-authored text. Existing detection tools can only differentiate between machine-generated and human-authored text. We propose LLMDet, a model-specific, secure, efficient, and extendable detection tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:16Z)
• M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection [69.29017069438228]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capability to generate fluent responses to a wide variety of user queries. This has also raised concerns about the potential misuse of such texts in journalism, education, and academia. In this study, we strive to create automated systems that can detect machine-generated texts and pinpoint potential misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T08:55:11Z)
• MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild [82.70561073277801]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved human-level text generation, emphasizing the need for effective AI-generated text detection. We build a comprehensive testbed by gathering texts from diverse human writings and texts generated by different LLMs. Despite challenges, the top-performing detector can identify 86.54% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:13:29Z)
• Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectors [56.36291277897995]
  Small and partially-trained models are better universal text detectors. We find that whether the detector and generator were trained on the same data is not critically important to the detection success. For instance, the OPT-125M model has an AUC of 0.81 in detecting ChatGPT generations, whereas a larger model from the GPT family, GPTJ-6B, has AUC of 0.45.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T00:09:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.