# MUGC: Machine Generated versus User Generated Content Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19725 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19725/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Defending Against Neural Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12616/) (2019)
- [Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09203/) (2019)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (2019)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.00061/) (2021)
- [Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01314/) (2020)
- [ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13852/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15654/) (2023)
- [Generating Sentiment-Preserving Fake Online Reviews Using Neural Language Models and Their Human- and Machine-based Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.09177/) (2019)
- [CHEAT: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT-writtEn AbsTracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12008/) (2023)
- [Detecting Bot-Generated Text by Characterizing Linguistic Accommodation in Human-Bot Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01170/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Uncertain Boundaries: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Copyright Issues in Generative AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08221/) (2024)
- [Who Wrote This? Identifying Machine vs Human-Generated Text in Hausa](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13101/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As advanced modern systems like deep neural networks (DNNs) and generative AI continue to enhance their capabilities in producing convincing and realistic content, the need to distinguish between user-generated and machine generated content is becoming increasingly evident. In this research, we undertake a comparative evaluation of eight traditional machine-learning algorithms to distinguish between machine-generated and human-generated data across three diverse datasets: Poems, Abstracts, and Essays. Our results indicate that traditional methods demonstrate a high level of accuracy in identifying machine-generated data, reflecting the documented effectiveness of popular pre-trained models like RoBERT. We note that machine-generated texts tend to be shorter and exhibit less word variety compared to human-generated content. While specific domain-related keywords commonly utilized by humans, albeit disregarded by current LLMs (Large Language Models), may contribute to this high detection accuracy, we show that deeper word representations like word2vec can capture subtle semantic variances. Furthermore, readability, bias, moral, and affect comparisons reveal a discernible contrast between machine-generated and human generated content. There are variations in expression styles and potentially underlying biases in the data sources (human and machine-generated). This study provides valuable insights into the advancing capacities and challenges associated with machine-generated content across various domains.