Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Dataset 2.1 Baseline 2.2 Proposed Model 2.3 Our System 2.4 Results 2.5 Comparison With Proprietary Systems 2.6 Results Comparison Conclusion 3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses 3.2 Possible Improvements 3.3 Possible Extensions and Applications 3.4 Limitations and Potential for Misuse Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Dataset 2.1 Baseline 2.2 Proposed Model 2.3 Our System 2.4 Results 2.5 Comparison With Proprietary Systems 2.6 Results Comparison Dataset Dataset 2.1 Baseline Baseline 2.2 Proposed Model Proposed Model 2.3 Our System Our System 2.4 Results Results 2.5 Comparison With Proprietary Systems Comparison With Proprietary Systems 2.6 Results Comparison Results Comparison Conclusion 3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses 3.2 Possible Improvements 3.3 Possible Extensions and Applications 3.4 Limitations and Potential for Misuse Conclusion Conclusion 3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths and Weaknesses 3.2 Possible Improvements Possible Improvements 3.3 Possible Extensions and Applications Possible Extensions and Applications 3.4 Limitations and Potential for Misuse Limitations and Potential for Misuse A. Other Plots and information A. Other Plots and information B. System Description B. System Description C. Effect of Text boundary location on performance C. Effect of Text boundary location on performance A Other Plots and information Some of the information that couldn’t be covered due to page limitations along with details for system replication have been added here. A.1 POS tag usage : human vs machines It can be seen from Figure 11 , Figure 12 and Figure 10 that machine generated texts had higher share of certain POS tags in the machine generated parts compared to the human written parts. This was observed in all 3 sets, the train and dev had similar distributions as a result of using same generators i.e ChatGPT and the test had a bit of a variation due to multiple different generators i.e LLaMA2 and GPT4. Although the percentile comparison did vary from train, dev and test sets , it was minimal. A.2 MAE characteristics : DeBERTa vs Longformer As discussed in the paper , there were some instances where one model performed significantly better than the other as seen in Figure 8 and Figure 9 hinting that an ensemble of both’s predictions might yield better results. B System Description DeBERTa-CRF was the official submission, longformer.pos-CRF had almost the same performance on the test set. i.e 18.538 and 18.542. Other models that have been tested but were found to have a big margin of performance with above listed models Due to time and computational resources limitation, only a part of hyperparameter space was explored. C Effect of Text boundary location on performance The location of text boundaries with respect to length of the text samples are varying over the training and testing set as seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Despite training on samples where the text boundaries are in the first half in most of the cases, the models did perform well on the testing set where there is a good amount of samples with text boundaries in later half. This is an area where the proprietary systems struggled. Author: (1) Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala, University of Maryland, College Park (rkadiyal@terpmail.umd.edu**).** Author: Author: (1) Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala, University of Maryland, College Park (rkadiyal@terpmail.umd.edu**).** This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. available on arxiv
