# ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11336 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11336/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08734/) (2017)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13408/) (2023)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12070/) (2024)
- [Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00650/) (2019)
- [DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05540/) (2023)
- [Nearest Neighbor Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.00710/) (2020)
- [RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07940/) (2024)
- [DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17359/) (2023)
- [M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14902/) (2023)
- [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)
- [OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11729/) (2023)
- [Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14873/) (2024)
- [Label-Agnostic Sequence Labeling by Copying Nearest Neighbors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04225/) (2019)
- [Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14259/) (2024)
- [Detecting Machine-Generated Texts: Not Just "AI vs Humans" and Explainability is Complicated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18259/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Systematic Analysis of Linguistic Features in AI-Generated Text Detection Across Domains and Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04177/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions, such as undermining students' academic dignity. LLM text detection thus needs to ensure the interpretability of the decision, which can help users judge how reliably correct its prediction is. When humans verify whether a text is human-written or LLM-generated, they intuitively investigate which of them it shares more similar spans with. However, existing interpretable detectors are not aligned with the human decision-making process and fail to offer evidence that users easily understand. To bridge this gap, we introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process for verifying the origin of a text. ExaGPT identifies a text by checking whether it shares more similar spans with human-written vs. with LLM-generated texts from a datastore. This approach can provide similar span examples that contribute to the decision for each span in the text as evidence. Our human evaluation demonstrates that providing similar span examples contributes more effectively to judging the correctness of the decision than existing interpretable methods. Moreover, extensive experiments in four domains and three generators show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior interpretable detectors by up to +37.0 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.