Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11670 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917696202866688 |
|---|---|
| author | Pröhl, Thorsten Putzier, Erik Zarnekow, Rüdiger |
| author_facet | Pröhl, Thorsten Putzier, Erik Zarnekow, Rüdiger |
| contents | This article gives an overview of the field of LLM text recognition. Different approaches and implemented detectors for the recognition of LLM-generated text are presented. In addition to discussing the implementations, the article focuses on benchmarking the detectors. Although there are numerous software products for the recognition of LLM-generated text, with a focus on ChatGPT-like LLMs, the quality of the recognition (recognition rate) is not clear. Furthermore, while it can be seen that scientific contributions presenting their novel approaches strive for some kind of comparison with other approaches, the construction and independence of the evaluation dataset is often not comprehensible. As a result, discrepancies in the performance evaluation of LLM detectors are often visible due to the different benchmarking datasets. This article describes the creation of an evaluation dataset and uses this dataset to investigate the different detectors. The selected detectors are benchmarked against each other. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2406_11670 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Benchmarking of LLM Detection: Comparing Two Competing Approaches Pröhl, Thorsten Putzier, Erik Zarnekow, Rüdiger Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence This article gives an overview of the field of LLM text recognition. Different approaches and implemented detectors for the recognition of LLM-generated text are presented. In addition to discussing the implementations, the article focuses on benchmarking the detectors. Although there are numerous software products for the recognition of LLM-generated text, with a focus on ChatGPT-like LLMs, the quality of the recognition (recognition rate) is not clear. Furthermore, while it can be seen that scientific contributions presenting their novel approaches strive for some kind of comparison with other approaches, the construction and independence of the evaluation dataset is often not comprehensible. As a result, discrepancies in the performance evaluation of LLM detectors are often visible due to the different benchmarking datasets. This article describes the creation of an evaluation dataset and uses this dataset to investigate the different detectors. The selected detectors are benchmarked against each other. |
| title | Benchmarking of LLM Detection: Comparing Two Competing Approaches |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11670 |