RKadiyala at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Black-Box Word-Level Text Boundary Detection in Partially Machine Generated Texts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16659v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:21:59 GMT
• Title: RKadiyala at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Black-Box Word-Level Text Boundary Detection in Partially Machine Generated Texts
• Authors: Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces few reliable approaches for identifying which part of a given text is machine generated at a word level. We present a comparison with proprietary systems, performance of our model on unseen domains' and generators' texts. The findings reveal significant improvements in detection accuracy along with comparison on other aspects of detection capabilities.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: With increasing usage of generative models for text generation and widespread use of machine generated texts in various domains, being able to distinguish between human written and machine generated texts is a significant challenge. While existing models and proprietary systems focus on identifying whether given text is entirely human written or entirely machine generated, only a few systems provide insights at sentence or paragraph level at likelihood of being machine generated at a non reliable accuracy level, working well only for a set of domains and generators. This paper introduces few reliable approaches for the novel task of identifying which part of a given text is machine generated at a word level while comparing results from different approaches and methods. We present a comparison with proprietary systems , performance of our model on unseen domains' and generators' texts. The findings reveal significant improvements in detection accuracy along with comparison on other aspects of detection capabilities. Finally we discuss potential avenues for improvement and implications of our work. The proposed model is also well suited for detecting which parts of a text are machine generated in outputs of Instruct variants of many LLMs.

Related papers

• Detecting Machine-Generated Long-Form Content with Latent-Space Variables [54.07946647012579]
  Existing zero-shot detectors primarily focus on token-level distributions, which are vulnerable to real-world domain shifts. We propose a more robust method that incorporates abstract elements, such as event transitions, as key deciding factors to detect machine versus human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:42:09Z)
• Exploring the Limitations of Detecting Machine-Generated Text [29.06307663406079]
  We critically examine the classification performance for detecting machine-generated text by evaluating on texts with varying writing styles. We find that classifiers are highly sensitive to stylistic changes and differences in text complexity. We further find that detection systems are particularly susceptible to misclassify easy-to-read texts while they have high performance for complex texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T21:02:02Z)
• Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Text [61.22649031769564]
  We propose a novel framework, paraphrased text span detection (PTD) PTD aims to identify paraphrased text spans within a text. We construct a dedicated dataset, PASTED, for paraphrased text span detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T11:22:27Z)
• Deciphering Textual Authenticity: A Generalized Strategy through the Lens of Large Language Semantics for Detecting Human vs. Machine-Generated Text [8.290557547578146]
  We introduce a novel system, T5LLMCipher, for detecting machine-generated text using a pretrained T5 encoder combined with LLM embedding sub-clustering. We find that our approach provides state-of-the-art generalization ability, with an average increase in F1 score on machine-generated text of 19.6% on unseen generators and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:45:13Z)
• Beyond Turing: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches for Detecting Machine-Generated Text [1.919654267936118]
  Traditional shallow learning, Language Model (LM) fine-tuning, and Multilingual Model fine-tuning are evaluated. Results reveal considerable differences in performance across methods. This study paves the way for future research aimed at creating robust and highly discriminative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T06:23:38Z)
• MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Types [68.76742370525234]
  We propose a new evaluation scheme to model human judgments in 7 NLP tasks, based on the fine-grained mismatches between a pair of texts. Inspired by the recent efforts in several NLP tasks for fine-grained evaluation, we introduce a set of 13 mismatch error types. We show that the mismatch errors between the sentence pairs on the held-out datasets from 7 NLP tasks align well with the human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T01:38:53Z)
• 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)
• On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection [76.55825911221434]
  We argue that as machine-generated text approximates human-like quality, the sample size needed for detection bounds increases. We test various state-of-the-art text generators, including GPT-2, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama, Llama-2-13B-Chat-HF, and Llama-2-70B-Chat-HF, against detectors, including oBERTa-Large/Base-Detector, GPTZero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T17:47:39Z)
• RoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Text [25.80571756447762]
  We present Real or Fake Text (RoFT), a website that invites users to try their hand at detecting machine-generated text. We show preliminary results of using RoFT to evaluate detection of machine-generated news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T22:47:43Z)

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.