ACL Findings2026
ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability
Ryuto Koike, Masahiro Kaneko, Ayana Niwa, Preslav Nakov, Naoaki Okazaki
Abstract
Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions, such as undermining student's academic dignity. LLM text detection thus needs to ensure the interpretability of the decision, which can help users judge how reliably correct its prediction is. When humans verify whether a text is human-written or LLM-generated, they intuitively investigate which of them it shares more similar spans with. However, existing interpretable detectors are not aligned with the human decision-making process and fail to offer evidence that users easily understand. To bridge this gap, we introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process for verifying the origin of a text. Ex-aGPT identifies a text by checking whether it shares more similar spans with human-written vs. with LLM-generated texts from a datastore. This approach can provide similar span examples that contribute to the decision for each span in the text as evidence. Our human evaluation demonstrates that providing similar span examples contributes more effectively to judging the correctness of the decision than existing interpretable methods. Moreover, extensive experiments in four domains and three generators show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior interpretable detectors by up to +37.0 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 1 top-tier paper that cites it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Builds on13
- DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability CurvatureEric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning et al.ICML 2023 · 988 citations
- A Watermark for Large Language ModelsJohn Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz et al.ICML 2023 · 854 citations
- Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defenseKalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 657 citations
- Nearest Neighbor Machine TranslationUrvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer et al.ICLR 2021 · 323 citations
- Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability CurvatureGuangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang et al.ICLR 2024 · 311 citations
Related papers
- LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection ToolKangxi Wu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng et al.EMNLP Findings 2023 · 31 citations
- Is Human-Like Text Liked by Humans? Multilingual Human Detection and Preference Against AIYuxia Wang, Rui Xing, Jonibek Mansurov, Giovanni Puccetti et al.ACL 2026 · 3 citations
- DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT WordsmithKavita Kumari, Alessandro Pegoraro, Hossein Fereidooni, Ahmad-Reza SadeghiNDSS 2024
- MOSAIC: Multiple Observers Spotting AI ContentMatthieu Dubois, François Yvon, Pablo PiantanidaACL Findings 2025
- MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the WildYafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi et al.ACL 2024 · 44 citations
