mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AuthentiGPT: Detecting Machine-Generated Text via Black-Box Language Models Denoising

arXiv 2311.07700 ↗First posted 13 Nov 2023cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have opened up enormous opportunities while simultaneously posing ethical dilemmas. One of the major concerns is their ability to create text that closely mimics human writing, which can lead to potential misuse, such as academic misconduct, disinformation, and fraud. To address this problem, we present AuthentiGPT, an efficient classifier that distinguishes between machine-generated and human-written texts. Under the assumption that human-written text resides outside the distribution of machine-generated text, AuthentiGPT leverages a black-box LLM to denoise input text with artificially added noise, and then semantically compares the denoised text with the original to determine if the content is machine-generated. With only one trainable parameter, AuthentiGPT eliminates the need for a large training dataset, watermarking the LLM's output, or computing the log-likelihood. Importantly, the detection capability of AuthentiGPT can be easily adapted to any generative language model. With a 0.918 AUROC score on a domain-specific dataset, AuthentiGPT demonstrates its effectiveness over other commercial algorithms, highlighting its potential for detecting machine-generated text in academic settings.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2023.

Builds on

22 of 35 references.

References · 22

  1. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  2. 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,271
  3. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  4. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  5. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  6. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  7. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  8. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  9. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  10. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  11. 2023On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Modelscited by 170
  12. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
10 more
  1. 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 127
  2. 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
  3. 2022Denoising diffusion models for out-of-distribution detectioncited by 102
  4. 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 90
  5. 2023On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 88
  6. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
  7. 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 75
  8. 2023HowkGPT: Investigating the Detection of ChatGPT-generated University Student Homework through Context-Aware Perplexity Analysiscited by 30
  9. 2023Efficient Detection of LLM-generated Texts with a Bayesian Surrogate Modelcited by 18
  10. 2023Distinguishing Human Generated Text From ChatGPT Generated Text Using Machine Learningcited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 1.

5 papers.