HULLMI: Human vs LLM identification with explainability

Prathamesh Dinesh Joshi, Sahil Pocker, Raj Abhijit Dandekar, Rajat Dandekar, Sreedath Panat
{"title":"HULLMI: Human vs LLM identification with explainability","authors":"Prathamesh Dinesh Joshi, Sahil Pocker, Raj Abhijit Dandekar, Rajat Dandekar, Sreedath Panat","doi":"arxiv-2409.04808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As LLMs become increasingly proficient at producing human-like responses,\nthere has been a rise of academic and industrial pursuits dedicated to flagging\na given piece of text as \"human\" or \"AI\". Most of these pursuits involve modern\nNLP detectors like T5-Sentinel and RoBERTa-Sentinel, without paying too much\nattention to issues of interpretability and explainability of these models. In\nour study, we provide a comprehensive analysis that shows that traditional ML\nmodels (Naive-Bayes,MLP, Random Forests, XGBoost) perform as well as modern NLP\ndetectors, in human vs AI text detection. We achieve this by implementing a\nrobust testing procedure on diverse datasets, including curated corpora and\nreal-world samples. Subsequently, by employing the explainable AI technique\nLIME, we uncover parts of the input that contribute most to the prediction of\neach model, providing insights into the detection process. Our study\ncontributes to the growing need for developing production-level LLM detection\ntools, which can leverage a wide range of traditional as well as modern NLP\ndetectors we propose. Finally, the LIME techniques we demonstrate also have the\npotential to equip these detection tools with interpretability analysis\nfeatures, making them more reliable and trustworthy in various domains like\neducation, healthcare, and media.","PeriodicalId":501479,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.04808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
HULLMI:人类与 LLM 对可解释性的识别
随着 LLM 越来越熟练地做出类似人类的反应,学术界和工业界开始致力于将特定文本标记为 "人类 "或 "人工智能"。这些研究大多涉及 T5-Sentinel 和 RoBERTa-Sentinel 等现代 NLP 检测器,却没有过多关注这些模型的可解释性和可解释性问题。在我们的研究中,我们进行了全面的分析,结果表明传统的 ML 模型(Naive-Bayes、MLP、Random Forests、XGBoost)在人类与人工智能文本检测中的表现与现代 NLP 检测器不相上下。为此,我们在各种数据集(包括策划的语料库和真实世界样本)上实施了一套可靠的测试程序。随后,通过使用可解释的人工智能技术LIME,我们发现了输入中对每个模型的预测贡献最大的部分,为检测过程提供了洞察力。我们的研究有助于满足开发生产级 LLM 检测工具的日益增长的需求,这些工具可以利用我们提出的各种传统和现代 NLP 检测器。最后,我们展示的 LIME 技术还有潜力为这些检测工具配备可解释性分析功能,使它们在教育、医疗保健和媒体等各个领域更加可靠和可信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abductive explanations of classifiers under constraints: Complexity and properties Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic Towards Explainable Goal Recognition Using Weight of Evidence (WoE): A Human-Centered Approach A Metric Hybrid Planning Approach to Solving Pandemic Planning Problems with Simple SIR Models Neural Networks for Vehicle Routing Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1