REVIEW 2 cited by
Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Text generative models (TGMs) excel in producing text that matches the style of human language reasonably well. Such TGMs can be misused by adversaries, e.g., by automatically generating fake news and fake product reviews that can look authentic and fool humans. Detectors that can distinguish text generated by TGM from human written text play a vital role in mitigating such misuse of TGMs. Recently, there has been a flurry of works from both natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) communities to build accurate detectors for English. Despite the importance of this problem, there is currently no work that surveys this fast-growing literature and introduces newcomers to important research challenges. In this work, we fill this void by providing a critical survey and review of this literature to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of this problem. We conduct an in-depth error analysis of the state-of-the-art detector and discuss research directions to guide future work in this exciting area.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Relativistic Quantum Thermal Machine: Harnessing Relativistic Effects to Surpass Carnot Efficiency
Relativistic motion of the reservoirs in a three-level maser is claimed to yield a generalized Carnot bound that allows efficiency above the ordinary Carnot limit.
-
LLM Encoder vs. Decoder: Robust Detection of Chinese AI-Generated Text with LoRA
On the NLPCC 2025 Chinese AI-text detection benchmark, LoRA-adapted Qwen2.5-7B reaches 95.94% test accuracy, beating BERT-large (79.3%), RoBERTa-large (76.3%), and FastText (83.5%).
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.