HULLMI: Human vs LLM identification with explainability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As LLMs become increasingly proficient at producing human-like responses, there has been a rise of academic and industrial pursuits dedicated to flagging a given piece of text as "human" or "AI". Most of these pursuits involve modern NLP detectors like T5-Sentinel and RoBERTa-Sentinel, without paying too much attention to issues of interpretability and explainability of these models. In our study, we provide a comprehensive analysis that shows that traditional ML models (Naive-Bayes,MLP, Random Forests, XGBoost) perform as well as modern NLP detectors, in human vs AI text detection. We achieve this by implementing a robust testing procedure on diverse datasets, including curated corpora and real-world samples. Subsequently, by employing the explainable AI technique LIME, we uncover parts of the input that contribute most to the prediction of each model, providing insights into the detection process. Our study contributes to the growing need for developing production-level LLM detection tools, which can leverage a wide range of traditional as well as modern NLP detectors we propose. Finally, the LIME techniques we demonstrate also have the potential to equip these detection tools with interpretability analysis features, making them more reliable and trustworthy in various domains like education, healthcare, and media.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2024.
Builds on
22 of 41 references.
References · 22
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 890
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
- 2023Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?cited by 173
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
- 2023In-Context Impersonation Reveals Large Language Models' Strengths and Biasescited by 154
- 2024Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 65
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 57
- 2024LLM-as-a-Coauthor: Can Mixed Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text Be Detected?cited by 47
- 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 40
10 more
- 2024Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: State-of-the-Artcited by 34
- 2024Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 32
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Text: Factors Influencing Detectability with Current Methodscited by 23
- 2023ChatGPT: More than a Weapon of Mass Deception, Ethical challenges and responses from the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) perspectivecited by 22
- 2024Decoding the AI Pen: Techniques and Challenges in Detecting AI-Generated Textcited by 14
- 2024LLM-Detector: Improving AI-Generated Chinese Text Detection with Open-Source LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 10
- 2024Enhancing Text Authenticity: A Novel Hybrid Approach for AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 7
- 2024The Impact of Prompts on Zero-Shot Detection of AI-Generated Textcited by 6
- 2024Differentiating Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Texts Using Automatically Extracted Linguistic Featurescited by 5
- 2024Fake News Detection: It's All in the Data!cited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
3 papers.