mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Is ChatGPT Involved in Texts? Measure the Polish Ratio to Detect ChatGPT-Generated Text

arXiv 2307.11380 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2023cs.CLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The remarkable capabilities of large-scale language models, such as ChatGPT, in text generation have impressed readers and spurred researchers to devise detectors to mitigate potential risks, including misinformation, phishing, and academic dishonesty. Despite this, most previous studies have been predominantly geared towards creating detectors that differentiate between purely ChatGPT-generated texts and human-authored texts. This approach, however, fails to work on discerning texts generated through human-machine collaboration, such as ChatGPT-polished texts. Addressing this gap, we introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts), facilitating the construction of more robust detectors. It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. Additionally, we propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text. It provides a mechanism to measure the degree of ChatGPT influence in the resulting text. Our experimental results show our proposed model has better robustness on the HPPT dataset and two existing datasets (HC3 and CDB). Furthermore, the "Polish Ratio" we proposed offers a more comprehensive explanation by quantifying the degree of ChatGPT involvement.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2023.

Builds on

17 of 23 references.

References · 17

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2019SciBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Scientific Textcited by 1,404
  7. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  8. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  9. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  10. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  11. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  12. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
5 more
  1. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  2. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  3. 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
  4. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
  5. 2022CSL: A Large-scale Chinese Scientific Literature Datasetcited by 45

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 7; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: