Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Detecting AI-Generated Text in Educational Content: Leveraging Machine Learning and Explainable AI for Academic Integrity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A domain-specific XGBoost model trained on TF-IDF word counts classifies ChatGPT-written versus human-written cybersecurity paragraphs with 83% accuracy and outperforms GPTZero (77.5% versus 48.5%) on a three-class mixed benchmark…

desk verdict A plausible small benchmark with a useful narrow-beats-general lesson, but the headline GPTZero comparison rests on an underspecified split that risks leakage. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03203 v1 pith:JCLEHGSA submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

Ayat A. Najjar , Huthaifa I. Ashqar , Omar A. Darwish , Eman Hammad This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords AI-generatedtextdetectionChatGPTXGBoostLIMETF-IDFacademicintegrityGPTZerocybersecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a simple, domain-specific machine-learning model can tell ChatGPT-written paragraphs from human-written ones in cybersecurity text, and that such a narrow detector can beat a general-purpose commercial detector on the same task. On a new 1,000-paragraph dataset, XGBoost reaches 83% accuracy and Random Forest 81% for paragraphs, while the same family of models reaches 99-100% for full articles, evidence that shorter units are harder to attribute. Explainable-AI analysis finds a consistent vocabulary split: human writing favors practical words like 'use' and 'allow', while ChatGPT text prefers formal, abstract terms like 'realm' and 'employ'. In a three-way benchmark of pure AI, pure human, and mixed paragraphs, the proposed model reaches about 77.5% accuracy versus GPTZero's 48.5%. If these results hold, educators can build transparent, low-cost detectors tailored to their own subject matter and get better results than generic AI-detection services.

What carries the argument

The pipeline's working parts are the CyberHumanAI dataset, TF-IDF vectorization, XGBoost, and LIME. TF-IDF, term frequency-inverse document frequency, turns each paragraph into a weighted word-count vector, so the model is essentially comparing word-choice profiles rather than reading meaning. XGBoost, a gradient-boosted decision-tree classifier, is the model that reaches the top paragraph accuracy; LIME, a local model-agnostic explanation method, takes a trained classifier and one example and reports which words pushed the prediction toward 'human' or 'ChatGPT.' The article-versus-paragraph comparison isolates input length as a difficulty factor, and the GPTZero comparison pits this fixed vocabulary signal against a commercial detector built on perplexity and burstiness.

What would settle it

Build a corpus of 500 real student cybersecurity essays and 500 ChatGPT replies to the same assignment prompts, then run the reported TF-IDF plus XGBoost pipeline on it; if paragraph accuracy falls to near 50% or to GPTZero's level, the paper's generalization to educational content is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a simple, fixed-feature machine-learning pipeline can reliably separate ChatGPT-written from human-written cybersecurity paragraphs, and that such a narrowly trained model beats a general-purpose detector on that task. The evidence is the CyberHumanAI dataset: 500 human paragraphs pulled from an open encyclopedia via its API and 500 ChatGPT paragraphs on the same cybersecurity titles, compiled in September 2023. On paragraph classification, XGBoost reaches 83% accuracy and Random Forest 81%, while deep networks trail (DNN 69%, CNN 79%); on full articles, accuracy rises to 99-100%. In the three-class comparison of pure AI, pure human, and mixed text, the proposed XGBoost model reaches about 77.5% accuracy with no unrecognized cases, while GPTZero reaches 48.5% and leaves 32 of 200 inputs unclassified, most often labeling pure-AI and pure-human text as mixed. LIME explanations attribute the separation to a vocabulary asymmetry: practical words such as 'use,' 'allow,' and 'virus' mark human text, while formal, abstract words such as 'realm,' 'employ,' and 'establish' mark ChatGPT text.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that encyclopedia paragraphs on computer-security topics stand in for the student work that academic-integrity tools would actually screen, and that ChatGPT output on matching titles stands in for how students use AI.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A narrow, TF-IDF-based detector can beat a general-purpose commercial detector on its own benchmark: 77.5% versus 48.5% accuracy on pure-AI, pure-human, and mixed paragraphs, with no unrecognized cases.
  • Shorter text is harder to attribute: the same algorithms that reach 99-100% on full articles drop to 69-83% on paragraphs, so length must be reported alongside any accuracy claim.
  • Because LIME identifies the exact words driving a prediction, a deployed detector can give educators a student-facing explanation rather than an opaque flag.
  • Classical machine learning on small corpora is competitive with deep learning for this task: XGBoost at 83% beat the best deep model, CNN, at 79%.
  • A general-purpose detector's accuracy on short, domain-specific text can be substantially overstated: GPTZero classified most pure-AI and pure-human paragraphs as mixed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: whether the ChatGPT half could be paraphrased or prompted to imitate encyclopedia style; if a simple style-shift prompt erases the 'realm' and 'employ' markers, the 83% result would not generalize to adversarial student use.
  • The September 2023 data collection makes the lexical signal time-sensitive; newer LLMs or updated GPTZero could narrow or erase the reported 29-point gap, and re-running the same pipeline on current text is a direct check.
  • The human side is encyclopedia prose, not student essays; until the pipeline is validated on actual assignment submissions, the paper's 'educational content' framing should be treated as a claim about one genre pair, not about student behavior.
  • A deployment implication the paper leaves implicit: publishing LIME's feature lists helps explain flags to students but also teaches anyone how to avoid detection, so an integrity tool built this way should be continually re-evaluated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a machine-learning pipeline to distinguish human-written from ChatGPT-generated cybersecurity text, introducing the CyberHumanAI dataset of 500 Wikipedia-derived human paragraphs and 500 ChatGPT paragraphs. The authors evaluate six classifiers (RF, SVM, J48, XGBoost, DNN, CNN) on paragraph-level and article-level classification, report XGBoost (83%) and RF (81%) as the best paragraph classifiers, use LIME to identify discriminative words, and compare their best model with GPTZero on a three-class (Pure AI, Mixed, Pure Human) benchmark, claiming 77.5% accuracy versus GPTZero's 48.5%. The paper's title and abstract frame the work as supporting academic integrity in educational content.

Significance. If the central claims are valid, the paper offers a useful, lightweight baseline: TF-IDF features plus XGBoost can separate ChatGPT from human-written cybersecurity paragraphs at roughly 80% accuracy, and a task-specific detector can outperform a general-purpose commercial detector on a narrow domain. The internal arithmetic is consistent: the confusion matrices in Figures 4 and Tables 6/7 agree with the reported accuracies. The XAI analysis (LIME) is a commendable transparency addition, and the article-versus-paragraph comparison is a legitimate observation. However, the significance is substantially tempered by the lack of dataset/code availability, the absence of any statistical uncertainty quantification, and potential flaws in the GPTZero benchmark construction that currently make the headline comparative claim unverifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The construction of the three-class GPTZero comparison is underspecified to the point that the central comparative claim (77.5% vs 48.5%) is not verifiable. The text says 600 observations were 'created' by combining ChatGPT and human text, then split 400/200 for training/testing, but it never states whether the source paragraphs used in a Mixed observation are disjoint between the training and test sets. Because the XGBoost model uses TF-IDF unigram features, any source paragraph that contributes tokens to both a training observation and a test observation would directly leak lexical identities and inflate the reported accuracy. GPTZero, as a black-box API, would not receive this leakage benefit, so the comparison would be systematically biased. Please either state explicitly and demonstrate that every source paragraph appears in only one observation (training or test), or re-run the comparison with a formally disjoint construction and release the exact splitting procedure.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Abstract] The dataset does not match the educational-integrity framing of the paper. The human paragraphs were extracted from Wikipedia using the keyword 'computer security,' and the AI paragraphs were generated by ChatGPT on the same titles. This corpus may resemble encyclopedia prose, but it is not student work, homework, term papers, or typical academic submissions. The title and abstract claim that the tools detect 'AI-generated content in student work' and support 'academic integrity,' yet no evidence is provided that the distribution of Wikipedia text resembles student writing. As a result, the reported accuracies, the XAI feature findings, and the GPTZero comparison all lose direct relevance to the stated application. Please either add an evaluation on student-like text (or clearly scope the claims to Wikipedia-style prose) and discuss the transfer gap.
  3. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The paragraph-level accuracies (XGBoost 83%, RF 81%) are based on a single 80/20 train/test split, with no cross-validation, repeated splits, or confidence intervals. Given that RF, CNN, and XGBoost differ by only 2–4 percentage points, the reported ordering could easily be produced by noise. The reader cannot assess whether the superiority of XGBoost over RF is stable or whether the 83% figure is an artifact of one favorable split. Please report results over multiple random splits (e.g., 5× or 10× with mean and standard deviation) or use k-fold cross-validation, and state the hyperparameter choices as part of the evaluation protocol.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3] There are two tables numbered 'Table (6)' (one for GPTZero and one for the proposed model); renumber the second one as Table (7) and update all references accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'This dataset to acts as a fundamental step' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'This dataset acts as a fundamental step...'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'uses different the performance metrics' should be corrected to 'uses different performance metrics'.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Figure 6] In Section 4.2, the text says the model predicted the class 'with about 99% accuracy,' but this appears to refer to the prediction probability for a single instance, not the model's overall accuracy; please rephrase to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 4.3] The comparison would be more convincing if the authors reported GPTZero's behavior on the 32 unrecognized cases and the exact handling of those cases in the accuracy calculation, since the reported 48.5% excludes them while the proposed model has no unrecognized cases.
  6. [General] The CyberHumanAI dataset is described as a key contribution, but no repository link, data sharing statement, or code release is provided. For reproducibility and for the academic-integrity community to build on this work, the dataset and preprocessing/feature-engineering code should be made available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the study is an empirical train/test evaluation with no derivation chain that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation claim. Its central results are empirical accuracy values (XGBoost 83%, RF 81% on a 20% held-out test split; 77.5% vs 48.5% in the GPTZero comparison) obtained by training classifiers on TF-IDF features and evaluating them on held-out data. No equation in the paper defines the prediction in terms of the fitted parameters, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The XAI/LIME analysis is a descriptive post-hoc explanation of the trained model's decisions, not a derived physical or theoretical result. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., [3], [8], [23], [28], [36]) appear in related-work and algorithm-description contexts and are not load-bearing for the accuracy claims. The dataset-representativeness concern and the possible lack of source-paragraph disjointness in the GPTZero comparison are methodological validity threats, not circularity: even if the comparison were biased, the bias would come from data leakage or an unrepresentative benchmark, not from the model's output being equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a domain assumption about data representativeness, the standard TF-IDF representation, a single split without cross-validation, and a LIME-based interpretation. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The only fitted values are the trained model parameters and undisclosed hyperparameters, which is normal for an empirical ML study but not auditable here.

free parameters (1)
  • Model and vectorizer hyperparameters (XGBoost, Random Forest, TF-IDF, CNN, DNN) = not reported
    No hyperparameter values, n-gram ranges, or architecture details are given, so the measured accuracies depend on undisclosed settings chosen by the authors or tool defaults.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CyberHumanAI corpus (500 Wikipedia paragraphs vs 500 ChatGPT paragraphs on the same title) represents educational content and student submissions.
    Invoked throughout; Section 3.1 builds the dataset from Wikipedia API and ChatGPT without validation against real student writing.
  • domain assumption TF-IDF word features capture enough signal to separate human and AI text.
    All models use TF-IDF vectors (Section 3.1), and the XAI findings then treat individual word features as meaningful linguistic markers.
  • ad hoc to paper A single 80/20 train/test split gives a reliable estimate of generalization.
    Section 3.1 describes one 80/20 split with no cross-validation, repeated seeds, or confidence intervals.
  • domain assumption LIME explanations on the XGBoost model reveal the true discriminative features between human and AI text.
    Section 3.3 uses LIME local approximations, but the paper presents the top features as global characterizations of human versus AI language.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting AI-Generated Text in Educational Content: Leveraging Machine Learning and Explainable AI for Academic Integrity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCLEHGSA

@misc{pith2026250103203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting AI-Generated Text in Educational Content: Leveraging Machine Learning and Explainable AI for Academic Integrity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCLEHGSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03203}
}
read the original abstract

This study seeks to enhance academic integrity by providing tools to detect AI-generated content in student work using advanced technologies. The findings promote transparency and accountability, helping educators maintain ethical standards and supporting the responsible integration of AI in education. A key contribution of this work is the generation of the CyberHumanAI dataset, which has 1000 observations, 500 of which are written by humans and the other 500 produced by ChatGPT. We evaluate various machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms on the CyberHumanAI dataset comparing human-written and AI-generated content from Large Language Models (LLMs) (i.e., ChatGPT). Results demonstrate that traditional ML algorithms, specifically XGBoost and Random Forest, achieve high performance (83% and 81% accuracies respectively). Results also show that classifying shorter content seems to be more challenging than classifying longer content. Further, using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) we identify discriminative features influencing the ML model's predictions, where human-written content tends to use a practical language (e.g., use and allow). Meanwhile AI-generated text is characterized by more abstract and formal terms (e.g., realm and employ). Finally, a comparative analysis with GPTZero show that our narrowly focused, simple, and fine-tuned model can outperform generalized systems like GPTZero. The proposed model achieved approximately 77.5% accuracy compared to GPTZero's 48.5% accuracy when tasked to classify Pure AI, Pure Human, and mixed class. GPTZero showed a tendency to classify challenging and small-content cases as either mixed or unrecognized while our proposed model showed a more balanced performance across the three classes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A history of generative ai from gan to chatgpt,

    Y . Cao et al., “A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A history of generative ai from gan to chatgpt,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04226, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education,

    J. Qadir, “Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education,” in 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–9

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Advancing Object Detection in Transportation with Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs): A Comprehensive Review and Empirical Testing

    H. I. Ashqar, A. Jaber, T. I. Alhadidi, and M. Elhenawy, “Advancing Object Detection in Transportation with Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs): A Comprehensive Review and Empirical Testing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18286, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Automated Question Generation for Science Tests in Arabic Language Using NLP Techniques,

    M. Tami, H. I. Ashqar, and M. Elhenawy , “Automated Question Generation for Science Tests in Arabic Language Using NLP Techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08520, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Transformer Models in Education: Summarizing Science Textbooks with AraBART, MT5, AraT5, and mBART,

    S. Masri, Y . Raddad, F. Khandaqji, H. I. Ashqar, and M. Elhenawy, “Transformer Models in Education: Summarizing Science Textbooks with AraBART, MT5, AraT5, and mBART,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07692, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Generative AI for Enhancing Active Learning in Education: A Comparative Study of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in Crafting Customized Test Questions

    H. Rouzegar and M. Makrehchi, “Generative AI for Enhancing Active Learning in Education: A Comparative Study of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in Crafting Customized Test Questions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13903, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A survey of GPT -3 family large language models including ChatGPT and GPT -4,

    K. S. Kalyan, “A survey of GPT -3 family large language models including ChatGPT and GPT -4,” Natural Language Processing Journal, p. 100048, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Multitask Learning for Crash Analysis: A Fine- Tuned LLM Framework Using Twitter Data,

    S. Jaradat, R. Nayak, A. Paz, H. I. Ashqar, and M. Elhenawy, “Multitask Learning for Crash Analysis: A Fine- Tuned LLM Framework Using Twitter Data,” Smart Cities , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2422 –2465, 2024, doi: 10.3390/smartcities7050095

    work page doi:10.3390/smartcities7050095 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) for Automated Detection of Traffic Safety-Critical Events,

    M. Abu Tami, H. I. Ashqar, M. Elhenawy, S. Glaser, and A. Rakotonirainy, “Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) for Automated Detection of Traffic Safety-Critical Events,” Vehicles, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1571–1590, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A Framework for Detecting AI -Generated Text in Research Publications,

    P. Sarzaeim, A. Doshi, and Q. Mahmoud, “A Framework for Detecting AI -Generated Text in Research Publications,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Technologies, 2023, pp. 121–127

    2023

  3. [11]

    Real or fake text?: Investigating human ability to detect boundaries between human-written and machine-generated text,

    L. Dugan, D. Ippolito, A. Kirubarajan, S. Shi, and C. Callison-Burch, “Real or fake text?: Investigating human ability to detect boundaries between human-written and machine-generated text,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023, pp. 12763–12771

    2023

  4. [12]

    Differentiate ChatGPT -generated and Human -written Medical Texts. arXiv 2023,

    W. Liao et al. , “Differentiate ChatGPT -generated and Human -written Medical Texts. arXiv 2023,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11567

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chatgpt or human? detect and explain. explaining decisions of machine learning model for detecting short chatgpt-generated text,

    S. Mitrović, D. Andreoletti, and O. Ayoub, “Chatgpt or human? detect and explain. explaining decisions of machine learning model for detecting short chatgpt-generated text,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13852, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Distinguishing Human Generated Text From ChatGPT Generated Text Using Machine Learning,

    N. Islam, D. Sutradhar, H. Noor, J. T. Raya, M. T. Maisha, and D. M. Farid, “Distinguishing Human Generated Text From ChatGPT Generated Text Using Machine Learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01761, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    CHEA T: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT -writtEn AbsTracts,

    P. Y u, J. Chen, X. Feng, and Z. Xia, “CHEA T: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT -writtEn AbsTracts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12008, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Classification of Human -and AI-Generated Texts: Investigating Features for ChatGPT,

    L. Mindner, T. Schlippe, and K. Schaaff, “Classification of Human -and AI-Generated Texts: Investigating Features for ChatGPT,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education Technology , Springer, 2023, pp. 152–170

    2023

  9. [17]

    Differentiating Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer from Humans: Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Text and Human Text Using Machine Learning,

    I. Katib, F. Y . Assiri, H. A. Abdushkour, D. Hamed, and M. Ragab, “Differentiating Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer from Humans: Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Text and Human Text Using Machine Learning,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 15, p. 3400, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A comparison of ChatGPT-generated articles with human-written articles,

    S. Ariyaratne, K. P. Iyengar, N. Nischal, N. Chitti Babu, and R. Botchu, “A comparison of ChatGPT-generated articles with human-written articles,” Skeletal Radiol, pp. 1–4, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Distinguishing Human-Written and ChatGPT-Generated Text Using Machine Learning,

    H. Alamleh, A. A. S. AlQahtani, and A. ElSaid, “Distinguishing Human-Written and ChatGPT-Generated Text Using Machine Learning,” in 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), IEEE, 2023, pp. 154–158

    2023

  12. [20]

    A survey on text pre -processing & feature extraction techniques in natural language processing,

    A. Tabassum and R. R. Patil, “A survey on text pre -processing & feature extraction techniques in natural language processing,” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), vol. 7, no. 06, pp. 4864–4867, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Sentiment classification: Review of text vectorization methods: Bag of words, Tf-Idf, Word2vec and Doc2vec,

    H. D. Abubakar, M. Umar, and M. A. Bakale, “Sentiment classification: Review of text vectorization methods: Bag of words, Tf-Idf, Word2vec and Doc2vec,” SLU Journal of Science and Technology , vol. 4, no. 1 & 2, pp. 27–33, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison,

    F. Y . Osisanwo, J. E. T. Akinsola, O. Awodele, J. O. Hinmikaiye, O. Olakanmi, and J. Akinjobi, “Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison,” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 128–138, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Impact of risk factors on work zone crashes using logistic models and Random Forest,

    H. I. Ashqar, Q. H. Q. Shaheen, S. A. Ashur, and H. A. Rakha, “Impact of risk factors on work zone crashes using logistic models and Random Forest,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), IEEE, 2021, pp. 1815–1820

    2021

  16. [24]

    ML-CCD: machine learning model to predict concrete cover delamination failure mode in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRP sheets,

    F. H. Salahat, H. A. Rasheed, and H. I. Ashqar, “ML-CCD: machine learning model to predict concrete cover delamination failure mode in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRP sheets,” Software Impacts, vol. 21, p. 100685, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Random forests and decision trees,

    J. Ali, R. Khan, N. Ahmad, and I. Maqsood, “Random forests and decision trees,” International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), vol. 9, no. 5, p. 272, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Application of support vector machine modeling for prediction of common diseases: the case of diabetes and pre-diabetes,

    W. Y u, T. Liu, R. V aldez, M. Gwinn, and M. J. Khoury, “Application of support vector machine modeling for prediction of common diseases: the case of diabetes and pre-diabetes,” BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Driving style classification using a semisupervised support vector machine,

    W. Wang, J. Xi, A. Chong, and L. Li, “Driving style classification using a semisupervised support vector machine,” IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 650–660, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Modeling bike availability in a bike-sharing system using machine learning,

    H. I. Ashqar, M. Elhenawy, M. H. Almannaa, A. Ghanem, H. A. Rakha, and L. House, “Modeling bike availability in a bike-sharing system using machine learning,” in 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), ...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Estimation of diabetes in a high -risk adult Chinese population using J48 decision tree model,

    D. Pei, T. Yang, and C. Zhang, “Estimation of diabetes in a high -risk adult Chinese population using J48 decision tree model,” Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity, pp. 4621–4630, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    An efficient predictive model for myocardial infarction using cost -sensitive j48 model,

    A. Daraei and H. Hamidi, “An efficient predictive model for myocardial infarction using cost -sensitive j48 model,” Iran J Public Health, vol. 46, no. 5, p. 682, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Insights into geospatial heterogeneity of landslide susceptibility based on the SHAP-XGBoost model,

    J. Zhang et al., “Insights into geospatial heterogeneity of landslide susceptibility based on the SHAP-XGBoost model,” J Environ Manage, vol. 332, p. 117357, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Efficient estimating compressive strength of ultra -high performance concrete using XGBoost model,

    N.-H. Nguyen, J. Abellán-García, S. Lee, E. Garcia-Castano, and T. P. V o, “Efficient estimating compressive strength of ultra -high performance concrete using XGBoost model,” Journal of Building Engineering , vol. 52, p. 104302, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Review of deep learning algorithms and architectures,

    A. Shrestha and A. Mahmood, “Review of deep learning algorithms and architectures,” IEEE access, vol. 7, pp. 53040–53065, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Convolutional neural network for trajectory prediction,

    N. Nikhil and B. Tran Morris, “Convolutional neural network for trajectory prediction,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, 2018, p. 0

    2018

  27. [35]

    Convolutional neural networks for breast cancer detection in mammography: A survey,

    L. Abdelrahman, M. Al Ghamdi, F. Collado-Mesa, and M. Abdel-Mottaleb, “Convolutional neural networks for breast cancer detection in mammography: A survey,” Comput Biol Med, vol. 131, p. 104248, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Deep transfer learning for vulnerable road users detection using smartphone sensors data,

    M. Elhenawy, H. I. Ashqar, M. Masoud, M. H. Almannaa, A. Rakotonirainy, and H. A. Rakha, “Deep transfer learning for vulnerable road users detection using smartphone sensors data,” Remote Sens (Basel), vol. 12, no. 21, p. 3508, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Deep learning methods in transportation domain: a review,

    H. Nguyen, L. Kieu, T. Wen, and C. Cai, “Deep learning methods in transportation domain: a review,” IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 998–1004, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Comparing machine learning and deep learning methods for real- time crash prediction,

    A. Theofilatos, C. Chen, and C. Antoniou, “Comparing machine learning and deep learning methods for real- time crash prediction,” Transp Res Rec, vol. 2673, no. 8, pp. 169–178, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Magician’s corner: 9. Performance metrics for machine learning models,

    B. J. Erickson and F. Kitamura, “Magician’s corner: 9. Performance metrics for machine learning models,” 2021, Radiological Society of North America

    2021

  32. [40]

    Overview of explainable AI methods in NLP - deepsense.ai

    “Overview of explainable AI methods in NLP - deepsense.ai.” Accessed: Jan. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://deepsense.ai/overview-of-explainable-ai-methods-in-nlp/

    2024

  33. [41]

    A survey on XAI and natural language explanations,

    E. Cambria, L. Malandri, F. Mercorio, M. Mezzanzanica, and N. Nobani, “A survey on XAI and natural language explanations,” Inf Process Manag, vol. 60, no. 1, p. 103111, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    ‘ Why should i trust you?’ Explaining the predictions of any classifier,

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “‘ Why should i trust you?’ Explaining the predictions of any classifier,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2016, pp. 1135–1144

    2016

  35. [43]

    GPTZero | The Trusted AI Detector for ChatGPT, GPT -4, & More

    “GPTZero | The Trusted AI Detector for ChatGPT, GPT -4, & More.” Accessed: Jan. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://gptzero.me/

    2024

  36. [44]

    Princeton student creates GPTZero tool to detect ChatGPT-generated text - The Washington Post

    “Princeton student creates GPTZero tool to detect ChatGPT-generated text - The Washington Post.” Accessed: Jan. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/01/12/gptzero -chatgpt- detector-ai/

    2024

  37. [45]

    GPTZero - Wikipedia

    “GPTZero - Wikipedia.” Accessed: Jan. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPTZero

    2024

  38. [46]

    GPTZero performance in identifying artificial intelligence -generated medical texts: a preliminary study,

    F. Habibzadeh, “GPTZero performance in identifying artificial intelligence -generated medical texts: a preliminary study,” J Korean Med Sci, vol. 38, no. 38, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    ChatGPT and GPTZero in Research and Social Media: A Sentiment-and Topic-based Analysis,

    M. Heumann, T. Kraschewski, and M. H. Breitner, “ChatGPT and GPTZero in Research and Social Media: A Sentiment-and Topic-based Analysis,” Available at SSRN 4467646, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Deeptextmark: Deep learning based text watermarking for detection of large language model generated text,

    T. Munyer and X. Zhong, “Deeptextmark: Deep learning based text watermarking for detection of large language model generated text,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05773, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Exploring ways of harnessing pedagogical Practices with the assistance of ChatGPT,

    K. Nikolopoulou, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Exploring ways of harnessing pedagogical Practices with the assistance of ChatGPT,” International Journal of Changes in Education , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–111, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda,

    C. K. Lo, K. F. Hew, and M. S. Jong, “The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda,” Comput Educ, p. 105100, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Comparing Human -made and AI - generated Teaching Videos: An Experimental Study on Learning Effects,

    T. Netland, O. von Dzengelevski, K. Tesch, and D. Kwasnitschka, “Comparing Human -made and AI - generated Teaching Videos: An Experimental Study on Learning Effects,” Comput Educ, p. 105164, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Integrating generative AI in education: how ChatGPT brings challenges for future learning and teaching,

    Y . Wu, “Integrating generative AI in education: how ChatGPT brings challenges for future learning and teaching,” Journal of Advanced Research in Education, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 6–10, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    ChatGPT improves creative problem -solving performance in university students: An experimental study,

    M. Urban et al. , “ChatGPT improves creative problem -solving performance in university students: An experimental study,” Comput Educ, vol. 215, p. 105031, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Evaluating the impact of students’ generative AI use in educational contexts,

    D. Wood and S. H. Moss, “Evaluating the impact of students’ generative AI use in educational contexts,” Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 152–167, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning,

    D. Baidoo-Anu and L. O. Ansah, “Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning,” Journal of AI, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52 – 62, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.