Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

HULLMI: Human vs LLM identification with explainability

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

arxiv 2409.04808 v1 pith:323RINRB submitted 2024-09-07 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords detectiondetectorshumanmodernanalysisexplainabilityinterpretabilitylike
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DeBERTa-Sentinel: Toward Transparent and Trustworthy Detection of AI-Generated Text

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3 classifier reportedly beats a RoBERTa baseline at detecting paraphrased AI text (97.53% accuracy, 99.53% AUC), but sample-count mismatches and a possible train/test content overlap make the exa...

Pith tools