Comparison of the effectiveness of selected tools for detecting texts generated by artificial intelligence
Article Sidebar
Issue Vol. 40 (2026)
-
Analysis of the capabilities of predictive artificial intelligence models in corporate risk management
Kacper Ziemski188-192
-
Usability and availability of selected e-commerce services
Marcin Kozicki, Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska193-200
-
Comparison of C++ and Python performance based on selected algorithms
Szymon Bogucki, Kacper Burda201-205
-
Security analysis of selected web applications using vulnerability scanners
Mariusz Choroś, Marta Dziuba-Kozieł206-212
-
Comparison of Java and .NET reflection mechanisms for dynamic module loading: a performance benchmark study
Michał Mazur, Sebastian Maruszak, Marek Miłosz213-217
-
Comparative analysis of network vulnerability detection tools
Mateusz Zdunek218-225
-
Evaluation of mobile applications for personal finance management using the MARS scale
Łukasz Nikiel, Artsiom Patskevich, Marek Miłosz226-231
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of roulette betting strategies using Monte Carlo simulation
Marek Sarnecki232-238
-
Analysis of optimization capabilities of selected database management systems
Paweł Tarkiewicz, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik239-246
-
Comparative analysis of Espresso and Appium frameworks for automated UI testing of Android mobile applications
Jakub Derkacz247-254
-
Comparative analysis of the applicability of artificial intelligence models for code generation
Patryk Warchoł, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik255-262
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of selected tools for detecting texts generated by artificial intelligence
Marcin Brodacki, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik263-269
-
Comparative analysis of selected containerization tools in terms of MCP
Paweł Jan Tłusty, Maciej Pańczyk270-276
-
SpikeCliff effect: empirical analysis of deterministic timing discontinuities in sponge-based XOF functions
Łukasz Wójcik, Stanisław Lota277-282
-
Comparison of AI agents for creating SQL queries
Julia Sierpień, Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska283-288
-
Comparative analysis of the performance of PostgreSQL and Neo4j databases in the context of genealogical queries
Michał Muzyka, Mateusz Niedźwiedź, Marek Miłosz289-296
-
Evaluation of the effectiveness of static and dynamic methods in malware analysis
Dominik Tracz, Daniel Sawicki, Konrad Gromaszek297-303
-
Comparison of classical machine learning methods in the task of obesity level classification
Paweł Biesaga, Paweł Powroźnik304-312
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
This paper compares the effectiveness of selected publicly available tools for detecting AI-generated text: GPTZero AI Detector, ZeroGPT AI Detector, Copyleaks AI Detector, and Scribbr AI Detector. The experiment included 150 text samples in Polish and English, divided into human-written texts, AI-generated texts, and texts paraphrased using AI. ZeroGPT achieved the highest overall accuracy, equal to 64.0%, and the highest F1-score, equal to 77.7%. GPTZero achieved an accuracy of 58.7%, while Scribbr and Copyleaks achieved lower results, equal to 44.0% and 42.7%, respectively. Fully AI-generated texts were detected more effectively than AI-paraphrased texts. The overall accuracy was similar for Polish and English samples, equal to 52.7% and 52.0%, respectively.
Keywords:
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
- Industry, Innovation, Technology and Infrastructure
References
[1] P. Kumar, Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges, Artificial Intelligence Review 57 (2024) 260, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10888-y.
[2] J. Wu, S. Yang, R. Zhan, Y. Yuan, L. S. Chao, D. F. Wong, A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions, Computational Linguistics 51(1) (2025) 275–338, https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00549.
[3] E. N. Crothers, N. Japkowicz, H. L. Viktor, Machine-Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 70977–71002, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3294090.
[4] D. Weber-Wulff, A. Anohina-Naumeca, S. Bjelobaba, T. Foltýnek, J. Guerrero-Dib, O. Popoola, P. Šigut, L. Waddington, Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text, International Journal for Educational Integrity 19 (2023) 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z.
[5] M. Perkins, J. Roe, B. H. Vu, D. Postma, D. Hickerson, J. McGaughran, H. Q. Khuat, Simple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: implications for inclusive education, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21 (2024) 53, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239- 024-00487-w.
[6] A. Kartelj, M. Mladenović, S. Vujičić Stanković, Comparison of algorithms for the recognition of ChatGPT paraphrased texts, Journal of Big Data 12 (2025) 28, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-025-01082-0.
[7] K. Schaaff, T. Schlippe, L. Mindner, Classification of human- and AI-generated texts for different languages and domains, International Journal of Speech Technology 27 (2024) 935–956, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-024- 10143-3.
[8] W. Liang, M. Yuksekgonul, Y. Mao, E. Wu, J. Zou, GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers, Patterns 4(7) (2023) 100779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
[9] GPTZero, Frequently Asked Questions, https://gptzero.me/faq, [19.05.2026].
[10] ZeroGPT, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.zerogpt.com/faq, [19.05.2026].
[11] Copyleaks, AI Content Detector, https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector, [25.05.2026].
[12] Scribbr, AI Detector, https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector, [27.05.2026].
[13] OpenAI, What is ChatGPT? FAQ, OpenAI Help Center, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12677804-what-is-chatgpt-faq, [27.05.2026].
[14] OpenAI, ChatGPT release notes, OpenAI Help Center, https://help.openai.com/pl-pl/articles/6825453-chatgpt-informacje-o-wydaniach, [27.05.2026].
[15] Anthropic, Introducing Claude Sonnet 4.6, https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-4-6, [27.05.2026].
Article Details
Abstract views: 1

