DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT Wordsmith
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The potential misuse of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised concerns regarding the dissemination of false information, plagiarism, academic dishonesty, and fraudulent activities. Consequently, distinguishing between AI-generated and human-generated content has emerged as an intriguing research topic. However, current text detection methods lack precision and are often restricted to specific tasks or domains, making them inadequate for identifying content generated by ChatGPT. In this paper, we propose an effective ChatGPT detector named DEMASQ, which accurately identifies ChatGPT-generated content. Our method addresses two critical factors: (i) the distinct biases in text composition observed in human- and machine-generated content and (ii) the alterations made by humans to evade previous detection methods. DEMASQ is an energy-based detection model that incorporates novel aspects, such as (i) optimization inspired by the Doppler effect to capture the interdependence between input text embeddings and output labels, and (ii) the use of explainable AI techniques to generate diverse perturbations. To evaluate our detector, we create a benchmark dataset comprising a mixture of prompts from both ChatGPT and humans, encompassing domains such as medical, open Q&A, finance, wiki, and Reddit. Our evaluation demonstrates that DEMASQ achieves high accuracy in identifying content generated by ChatGPT.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2023.
Builds on
21 of 49 references.
References · 21
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 888
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
9 more
- 2023Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Modelscited by 102
- 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 57
- 2016"What is Relevant in a Text Document?": An Interpretable Machine Learning Approachcited by 53
- 2021Artificial Text Detection via Examining the Topology of Attention Mapscited by 49
- 2023ChatGPT versus Traditional Question Answering for Knowledge Graphs: Current Status and Future Directions Towards Knowledge Graph Chatbotscited by 47
- 2023Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detectioncited by 41
- 2018Understanding Convolutional Neural Networks for Text Classificationcited by 36
- 2023Applying BERT and ChatGPT for Sentiment Analysis of Lyme Disease in Scientific Literaturecited by 26
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
2 papers.