mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SMLT-MUGC: Small, Medium, and Large Texts -- Machine versus User-Generated Content Detection and Comparison

arXiv 2407.12815 ↗First posted 28 Jun 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have gained significant attention due to their ability to mimic human language. Identifying texts generated by LLMs is crucial for understanding their capabilities and mitigating potential consequences. This paper analyzes datasets of varying text lengths: small, medium, and large. We compare the performance of machine learning algorithms on four datasets: (1) small (tweets from Election, FIFA, and Game of Thrones), (2) medium (Wikipedia introductions and PubMed abstracts), and (3) large (OpenAI web text dataset). Our results indicate that LLMs with very large parameters (such as the XL-1542 variant of GPT2 with 1542 million parameters) were harder (74%) to detect using traditional machine learning methods. However, detecting texts of varying lengths from LLMs with smaller parameters (762 million or less) can be done with high accuracy (96% and above). We examine the characteristics of human and machine-generated texts across multiple dimensions, including linguistics, personality, sentiment, bias, and morality. Our findings indicate that machine-generated texts generally have higher readability and closely mimic human moral judgments but differ in personality traits. SVM and Voting Classifier (VC) models consistently achieve high performance across most datasets, while Decision Tree (DT) models show the lowest performance. Model performance drops when dealing with rephrased texts, particularly shorter texts like tweets. This study underscores the challenges and importance of detecting LLM-generated texts and suggests directions for future research to improve detection methods and understand the nuanced capabilities of LLMs.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2024.

Builds on

13 of 36 references.

References · 13

  1. 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,548
  2. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  3. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  4. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  5. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  6. 2023Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Modelscited by 356
  7. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
  8. 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
  9. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
  10. 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Contentcited by 70
  11. 2023CHEAT: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT-writtEn AbsTractscited by 39
  12. 2024Decoding the AI Pen: Techniques and Challenges in Detecting AI-Generated Textcited by 14
1 more
  1. 2023Distinguishing Human Generated Text From ChatGPT Generated Text Using Machine Learningcited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.