Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Testing the Limits: Evaluating AI Detectors’ Accuracy and the Impact of Obfuscation Techniques on AI-Generated Text
0
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated text has led to the development of numerous detection tools to distinguish between human and machine-authored content.However, the effectiveness of these tools, especially against manipulated texts, remains uncertain.This study evaluates nine widely used AI detection tools-Turnitin, ZeroGPT, Detecting-AI.com,GPTZero, QuillBot, Grammarly, Sapling, Copyleaks, and Originality.ai-usingtexts from four large language models-ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Grok-as well as human-written samples.Initial findings indicate that commercial tools, such as Copyleaks and Originality.ai,achieved near-perfect detection rates, while free tools, including Grammarly and QuillBot, performed less reliably, with some as low as 63.0%.On the other hand, paraphrasing and Non-Native English Speakers (NNES)-style rewriting techniques reduced detection accuracy across most detectors.Turnitin dropped to 45.7%, while Grammarly fell to 19.0% in some cases.Only Copyleaks, GPTZero, and Sapling maintained strong performance under obfuscation.The study highlights three issues: inconsistent detector performance, the impact of obfuscation, and ethical risks, including bias and false positives.The study suggests that while some detectors offer robust baseline performance, combining them with pedagogical strategies and policies is essential to uphold academic integrity.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications
2022 · 2.691 Zit.
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
1998 · 2.491 Zit.
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
2012 · 2.304 Zit.
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
2009 · 1.920 Zit.
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
2023 · 1.765 Zit.