"I know myself better, but not really greatly": Using LLMs to Detect and Explain LLM-Generated Texts

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in generating human-like texts, but the potential misuse of such LLM-generated texts raises the need to distinguish between human-generated and LLM-generated content. This paper explores the detection and explanation capabilities of LLM-based detectors of LLM-generated texts, in the context of a binary classification task (human-generated texts vs LLM-generated texts) and a ternary classification task (human-generated texts, LLM-generated texts, and undecided). By evaluating on six close/open-source LLMs with different sizes, our findings reveal that while self-detection consistently outperforms cross-detection, i.e., LLMs can detect texts generated by themselves more accurately than those generated by other LLMs, the performance of self-detection is still far from ideal, indicating that further improvements are needed. We also show that extending the binary to the ternary classification task with a new class "Undecided" can enhance both detection accuracy and explanation quality, with improvements being statistically significant and consistent across all LLMs. We finally conducted comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analyses on the explanation errors, which are categorized into three types: reliance on inaccurate features (the most frequent error), hallucinations, and incorrect reasoning. These findings with our human-annotated dataset emphasize the need for further research into improving both self-detection and self-explanation, particularly to address overfitting issues that may hinder generalization.

Detecting Machine-Generated Texts: Not Just "AI vs Humans" and Explainability is Complicated

As LLMs rapidly advance, increasing concerns arise regarding risks about actual authorship of texts we see online and in real world. The task of distinguishing LLM-authored texts is complicated by the nuanced and overlapping behaviors of both machines and humans. In this paper, we challenge the current practice of considering LLM-generated text detection a binary classification task of differentiating human from AI. Instead, we introduce a novel ternary text classification scheme, adding an "undecided" category for texts that could be attributed to either source, and we show that this new category is crucial to understand how to make the detection result more explainable to lay users. This research shifts the paradigm from merely classifying to explaining machine-generated texts, emphasizing need for detectors to provide clear and understandable explanations to users. Our study involves creating four new datasets comprised of texts from various LLMs and human authors. Based on new datasets, we performed binary classification tests to ascertain the most effective SOTA detection methods and identified SOTA LLMs capable of producing harder-to-detect texts. We constructed a new dataset of texts generated by two top-performing LLMs and human authors, and asked three human annotators to produce ternary labels with explanation notes. This dataset was used to investigate how three top-performing SOTA detectors behave in new ternary classification context. Our results highlight why "undecided" category is much needed from the viewpoint of explainability. Additionally, we conducted an analysis of explainability of the three best-performing detectors and the explanation notes of the human annotators, revealing insights about the complexity of explainable detection of machine-generated texts. Finally, we propose guidelines for developing future detection systems with improved explanatory power.