mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Collaborative Evaluation of Deepfake Text with Deliberation-Enhancing Dialogue Systems

arXiv 2503.04945 ↗First posted 6 Mar 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The proliferation of generative models has presented significant challenges in distinguishing authentic human-authored content from deepfake content. Collaborative human efforts, augmented by AI tools, present a promising solution. In this study, we explore the potential of DeepFakeDeLiBot, a deliberation-enhancing chatbot, to support groups in detecting deepfake text. Our findings reveal that group-based problem-solving significantly improves the accuracy of identifying machine-generated paragraphs compared to individual efforts. While engagement with DeepFakeDeLiBot does not yield substantial performance gains overall, it enhances group dynamics by fostering greater participant engagement, consensus building, and the frequency and diversity of reasoning-based utterances. Additionally, participants with higher perceived effectiveness of group collaboration exhibited performance benefits from DeepFakeDeLiBot. These findings underscore the potential of deliberative chatbots in fostering interactive and productive group dynamics while ensuring accuracy in collaborative deepfake text detection. textitDataset and source code used in this study will be made publicly available upon acceptance of the manuscript.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 76 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2025.

Builds on

21 of 76 references.

References · 21

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  2. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  3. 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
  4. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  5. 2021Sentence-T5: Scalable Sentence Encoders from Pre-trained Text-to-Text Modelscited by 463
  6. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  7. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  8. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  9. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  10. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 190
  11. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 132
  12. 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 120
9 more
  1. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 112
  2. 2022Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawedcited by 105
  3. 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 90
  4. 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
  5. 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
  6. 2023Fighting Fire with Fire: The Dual Role of LLMs in Crafting and Detecting Elusive Disinformationcited by 51
  7. 2020RoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 36
  8. 2023Does Human Collaboration Enhance the Accuracy of Identifying LLM-Generated Deepfake Texts?cited by 21
  9. 2019Judge the Judges: A Large-Scale Evaluation Study of Neural Language Models for Online Review Generationcited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

3 papers.