Detection of ChatGPT Fake Science with the xFakeSci Learning Algorithm
2308.11767
0
0
🔎
Abstract
Generative AI tools exemplified by ChatGPT are becoming a new reality. This study is motivated by the premise that ``AI generated content may exhibit a distinctive behavior that can be separated from scientific articles''. In this study, we show how articles can be generated using means of prompt engineering for various diseases and conditions. We then show how we tested this premise in two phases and prove its validity. Subsequently, we introduce xFakeSci, a novel learning algorithm, that is capable of distinguishing ChatGPT-generated articles from publications produced by scientists. The algorithm is trained using network models driven from both sources. As for the classification step, it was performed using 300 articles per condition. The actual label steps took place against an equal mix of 50 generated articles and 50 authentic PubMed abstracts. The testing also spanned publication periods from 2010 to 2024 and encompassed research on three distinct diseases: cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's. Further, we evaluated the accuracy of the xFakeSci algorithm against some of the classical data mining algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machines, Regression, and Naive Bayes). The xFakeSci algorithm achieved F1 scores ranging from 80% to 94%, outperforming common data mining algorithms, which scored F1 values between 38% and 52%. We attribute the noticeable difference to the introduction of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic, which underscores this promising performance. Indeed, the prediction of fake science generated by ChatGPT presents a considerable challenge. Nonetheless, the introduction of the xFakeSci algorithm is a significant step on the way to combating fake science.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This study investigates the ability to distinguish AI-generated content from scientific articles.
- The researchers developed a novel algorithm called xFakeSci that can detect ChatGPT-generated articles with high accuracy.
- The algorithm was tested on articles related to cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's, spanning the years 2010 to 2024.
- xFakeSci outperformed classical data mining algorithms in identifying AI-generated content.
Plain English Explanation
As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become more advanced, the researchers wanted to explore whether these AI-generated articles could be distinguished from ones written by human scientists. The premise was that AI-generated content may exhibit unique characteristics that set it apart from genuine scientific publications.
To test this, the researchers developed a new algorithm called xFakeSci. This algorithm was trained on a dataset of both AI-generated and authentic articles, using network models to learn the distinctive features of each. When tested, xFakeSci was able to accurately identify ChatGPT-generated articles related to cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's, with an impressive F1 score ranging from 80% to 94%. This performance was significantly better than that of classical data mining algorithms, which only achieved F1 scores between 38% and 52%.
The researchers attribute xFakeSci's strong performance to its use of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic, which help the algorithm identify the subtle differences between AI-generated and human-written content. This is an important step in the ongoing fight against the spread of fake science and misinformation generated by advanced AI models.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a two-phase study to investigate the ability to distinguish AI-generated content from scientific articles. In the first phase, they generated articles on various diseases and conditions using prompt engineering techniques. In the second phase, they introduced xFakeSci, a novel learning algorithm that can effectively differentiate ChatGPT-generated articles from those produced by human scientists.
The xFakeSci algorithm was trained using network models derived from both AI-generated and authentic articles. The classification process involved 300 articles per condition, with an equal mix of 50 generated articles and 50 authentic PubMed abstracts used for the actual label steps. The testing spanned a publication period from 2010 to 2024 and included research on three distinct diseases: cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's.
The researchers evaluated the accuracy of xFakeSci against several classical data mining algorithms, such as Support Vector Machines, Regression, and Naive Bayes. Remarkably, the xFakeSci algorithm achieved significantly higher F1 scores, ranging from 80% to 94%, while the classical algorithms scored between 38% and 52%.
The researchers attribute this noticeable performance difference to the inclusion of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic in the xFakeSci algorithm. These techniques help the algorithm better capture the unique characteristics that distinguish AI-generated content from authentic scientific publications.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that the prediction of fake science generated by ChatGPT presents a considerable challenge. While the introduction of the xFakeSci algorithm is a significant step towards addressing this issue, the study does not delve into potential limitations or caveats of the research.
One potential concern is the limited scope of the study, which focused only on three specific disease areas. It would be valuable to expand the research to a wider range of scientific domains to assess the broader applicability of the xFakeSci algorithm.
Additionally, the study does not provide insights into the specific features or patterns that the xFakeSci algorithm uses to differentiate AI-generated content from human-written articles. Understanding these underlying mechanisms could help researchers develop more robust and transparent detection methods, as discussed in the context of sentiment analysis of scientific articles using ChatGPT.
Further research could also explore the potential impact of ChatGPT on academic writing styles and investigate whether the algorithm's performance remains consistent as the capabilities of generative AI models continue to evolve.
Conclusion
This study represents an important step towards combating the growing threat of fake science and misinformation generated by advanced AI models. The development of the xFakeSci algorithm, which can accurately distinguish ChatGPT-generated articles from authentic scientific publications, is a significant contribution to this field.
The researchers have demonstrated the algorithm's strong performance, particularly in comparison to classical data mining techniques. This suggests that the introduction of novel, tailored approaches like xFakeSci may be crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the rapid advancements in generative AI.
As the use of these AI tools continues to expand, the need for effective detection mechanisms will only become more pressing. The insights and methodologies presented in this study provide a solid foundation for further research and development in the important area of combating fake science and misinformation.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🔎
FakeGPT: Fake News Generation, Explanation and Detection of Large Language Models
Yue Huang, Lichao Sun
0
0
The rampant spread of fake news has adversely affected society, resulting in extensive research on curbing its spread. As a notable milestone in large language models (LLMs), ChatGPT has gained significant attention due to its exceptional natural language processing capabilities. In this study, we present a thorough exploration of ChatGPT's proficiency in generating, explaining, and detecting fake news as follows. Generation -- We employ four prompt methods to generate fake news samples and prove the high quality of these samples through both self-assessment and human evaluation. Explanation -- We obtain nine features to characterize fake news based on ChatGPT's explanations and analyze the distribution of these factors across multiple public datasets. Detection -- We examine ChatGPT's capacity to identify fake news. We explore its detection consistency and then propose a reason-aware prompt method to improve its performance. Although our experiments demonstrate that ChatGPT shows commendable performance in detecting fake news, there is still room for its improvement. Consequently, we further probe into the potential extra information that could bolster its effectiveness in detecting fake news.
4/9/2024
🤿
Fact-Checking Generative AI: Ontology-Driven Biological Graphs for Disease-Gene Link Verification
Ahmed Abdeen Hamed, Byung Suk Lee, Alessandro Crimi, Magdalena M. Misiak
0
0
Since the launch of various generative AI tools, scientists have been striving to evaluate their capabilities and contents, in the hope of establishing trust in their generative abilities. Regulations and guidelines are emerging to verify generated contents and identify novel uses. we aspire to demonstrate how ChatGPT claims are checked computationally using the rigor of network models. We aim to achieve fact-checking of the knowledge embedded in biological graphs that were contrived from ChatGPT contents at the aggregate level. We adopted a biological networks approach that enables the systematic interrogation of ChatGPT's linked entities. We designed an ontology-driven fact-checking algorithm that compares biological graphs constructed from approximately 200,000 PubMed abstracts with counterparts constructed from a dataset generated using the ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model. In 10-samples of 250 randomly selected records a ChatGPT dataset of 1000 simulated articles , the fact-checking link accuracy ranged from 70% to 86%. This study demonstrated high accuracy of aggregate disease-gene links relationships found in ChatGPT-generated texts.
4/9/2024
🌀
A Survey on the Real Power of ChatGPT
Ming Liu, Ran Liu, Ye Zhu, Hua Wang, Youyang Qu, Rongsheng Li, Yongpan Sheng, Wray Buntine
0
0
ChatGPT has changed the AI community and an active research line is the performance evaluation of ChatGPT. A key challenge for the evaluation is that ChatGPT is still closed-source and traditional benchmark datasets may have been used by ChatGPT as the training data. In this paper, (i) we survey recent studies which uncover the real performance levels of ChatGPT in seven categories of NLP tasks, (ii) review the social implications and safety issues of ChatGPT, and (iii) emphasize key challenges and opportunities for its evaluation. We hope our survey can shed some light on its blackbox manner, so that researchers are not misleaded by its surface generation.
5/13/2024
Fake Artificial Intelligence Generated Contents (FAIGC): A Survey of Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities
Xiaomin Yu, Yezhaohui Wang, Yanfang Chen, Zhen Tao, Dinghao Xi, Shichao Song, Simin Niu, Zhiyu Li
0
0
In recent years, generative artificial intelligence models, represented by Large Language Models (LLMs) and Diffusion Models (DMs), have revolutionized content production methods. These artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) have become deeply embedded in various aspects of daily life and work. However, these technologies have also led to the emergence of Fake Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (FAIGC), posing new challenges in distinguishing genuine information. It is crucial to recognize that AIGC technology is akin to a double-edged sword; its potent generative capabilities, while beneficial, also pose risks for the creation and dissemination of FAIGC. In this survey, We propose a new taxonomy that provides a more comprehensive breakdown of the space of FAIGC methods today. Next, we explore the modalities and generative technologies of FAIGC. We introduce FAIGC detection methods and summarize the related benchmark from various perspectives. Finally, we discuss outstanding challenges and promising areas for future research.
5/6/2024