mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Texts

arXiv 2410.14677 ↗First posted 18 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid development of autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly improved the quality of generated texts, necessitating reliable machine-generated text detectors. A huge number of detectors and collections with AI fragments have emerged, and several detection methods even showed recognition quality up to 99.9% according to the target metrics in such collections. However, the quality of such detectors tends to drop dramatically in the wild, posing a question: Are detectors actually highly trustworthy or do their high benchmark scores come from the poor quality of evaluation datasets? In this paper, we emphasise the need for robust and qualitative methods for evaluating generated data to be secure against bias and low generalising ability of future model. We present a systematic review of datasets from competitions dedicated to AI-generated content detection and propose methods for evaluating the quality of datasets containing AI-generated fragments. In addition, we discuss the possibility of using high-quality generated data to achieve two goals: improving the training of detection models and improving the training datasets themselves. Our contribution aims to facilitate a better understanding of the dynamics between human and machine text, which will ultimately support the integrity of information in an increasingly automated world. The code is available at https://github.com/Advacheck-OU/ai-dataset-analysing.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2024.

Builds on

31 of 55 references.

References · 31

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
  4. 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,219
  5. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  6. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  7. 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 526
  8. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  9. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  10. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  11. 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 357
  12. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
19 more
  1. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  2. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
  3. 2023Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MADcited by 239
  4. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
  5. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
  6. 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 118
  7. 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
  8. 2024Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Paperscited by 112
  9. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  10. 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 90
  11. 2023OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examplescited by 80
  12. 2023HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpuscited by 33
  13. 2023Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domainscited by 31
  14. 2022Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russiancited by 29
  15. 2024ChatGPT "contamination": estimating the prevalence of LLMs in the scholarly literaturecited by 25
  16. 2023AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content Generationcited by 21
  17. 2023INSTRUCTSCORE: Explainable Text Generation Evaluation with Finegrained Feedbackcited by 21
  18. 2022SynSciPass: detecting appropriate uses of scientific text generationcited by 10
  19. 2024DeepPavlov at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Leveraging Transfer Learning for Detecting Boundaries of Machine-Generated Textscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 5; 2026: 1.

8 papers.