detect-ai-text / app.py
abdullahmeda's picture
Update app.py
b3c492a verified
import torch
import joblib
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import gradio as gr
from nltk.data import load as nltk_load
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForCausalLM
print("Loading model & Tokenizer...")
model_id = 'gpt2'
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(model_id)
print("Loading NLTL & and scikit-learn model...")
NLTK = nltk_load('data/english.pickle')
sent_cut_en = NLTK.tokenize
clf = joblib.load(f'data/gpt2-small-model')
CROSS_ENTROPY = torch.nn.CrossEntropyLoss(reduction='none')
example = """\
The perplexity (PPL) is commonly used as a metric for evaluating the performance of language models (LM). It is defined as the \
exponential of the negative average log-likelihood of the text under the LM. A lower PPL indicates that the language model is more confident \
in its predictions, and is therefore considered to be a better model. The training of LMs is carried out on large-scale text corpora, it can \
be considered that it has learned some common language patterns and text structures. Therefore, PPL can be used to measure how well a text \
conforms to common characteristics.
I used all variants of the open-source GPT-2 model except xl size to compute the PPL (both text-level and sentence-level PPLs) of the collected \
texts. It is observed that, regardless of whether it is at the text level or the sentence level, the content generated by LLMs have relatively \
lower PPLs compared to the text written by humans. LLM captured common patterns and structures in the text it was trained on, and is very good at \
reproducing them. As a result, text generated by LLMs have relatively concentrated low PPLs.\
"""
def gpt2_features(text, tokenizer, model, sent_cut):
# Tokenize
input_max_length = tokenizer.model_max_length - 2
token_ids, offsets = list(), list()
sentences = sent_cut(text)
for s in sentences:
tokens = tokenizer.tokenize(s)
ids = tokenizer.convert_tokens_to_ids(tokens)
difference = len(token_ids) + len(ids) - input_max_length
if difference > 0:
ids = ids[:-difference]
offsets.append((len(token_ids), len(token_ids) + len(ids)))
token_ids.extend(ids)
if difference >= 0:
break
input_ids = torch.tensor([tokenizer.bos_token_id] + token_ids)
logits = model(input_ids).logits
# Shift so that n-1 predict n
shift_logits = logits[:-1].contiguous()
shift_target = input_ids[1:].contiguous()
loss = CROSS_ENTROPY(shift_logits, shift_target)
all_probs = torch.softmax(shift_logits, dim=-1)
sorted_ids = torch.argsort(all_probs, dim=-1, descending=True) # stable=True
expanded_tokens = shift_target.unsqueeze(-1).expand_as(sorted_ids)
indices = torch.where(sorted_ids == expanded_tokens)
rank = indices[-1]
counter = [
rank < 10,
(rank >= 10) & (rank < 100),
(rank >= 100) & (rank < 1000),
rank >= 1000
]
counter = [c.long().sum(-1).item() for c in counter]
# compute different-level ppl
text_ppl = loss.mean().exp().item()
sent_ppl = list()
for start, end in offsets:
nll = loss[start: end].sum() / (end - start)
sent_ppl.append(nll.exp().item())
max_sent_ppl = max(sent_ppl)
sent_ppl_avg = sum(sent_ppl) / len(sent_ppl)
if len(sent_ppl) > 1:
sent_ppl_std = torch.std(torch.tensor(sent_ppl)).item()
else:
sent_ppl_std = 0
mask = torch.tensor([1] * loss.size(0))
step_ppl = loss.cumsum(dim=-1).div(mask.cumsum(dim=-1)).exp()
max_step_ppl = step_ppl.max(dim=-1)[0].item()
step_ppl_avg = step_ppl.sum(dim=-1).div(loss.size(0)).item()
if step_ppl.size(0) > 1:
step_ppl_std = step_ppl.std().item()
else:
step_ppl_std = 0
ppls = [
text_ppl, max_sent_ppl, sent_ppl_avg, sent_ppl_std,
max_step_ppl, step_ppl_avg, step_ppl_std
]
return ppls + counter # type: ignore
def predict_out(features, classifier, id_to_label):
x = np.asarray([features])
pred = classifier.predict(x)[0]
prob = classifier.predict_proba(x)[0, pred]
return [id_to_label[pred], prob]
def predict(text):
with torch.no_grad():
feats = gpt2_features(text, tokenizer, model, sent_cut_en)
out = predict_out(feats, clf, ['Human Written', 'LLM Generated'])
return out
with gr.Blocks() as demo:
gr.Markdown(
"""\
## Detect text generated using LLMs πŸ€–
Linguistic features such as Perplexity and other SOTA methods such as GLTR were used to classify between Human written and LLM Generated \
texts. This solution scored an ROC of 0.956 and 8th position in the DAIGT LLM Competition on Kaggle.
- Source & Credits: [https://github.com/Hello-SimpleAI/chatgpt-comparison-detection](https://github.com/Hello-SimpleAI/chatgpt-comparison-detection)
- Competition: [https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/llm-detect-ai-generated-text/leaderboard](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/llm-detect-ai-generated-text/leaderboard)
- Solution WriteUp: [https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/llm-detect-ai-generated-text/discussion/470224](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/llm-detect-ai-generated-text/discussion/470224)\
"""
)
with gr.Row():
gr.Markdown(
"""\
### Linguistic Analysis: Language Model Perplexity
The perplexity (PPL) is commonly used as a metric for evaluating the performance of language models (LM). It is defined as the exponential \
of the negative average log-likelihood of the text under the LM. A lower PPL indicates that the language model is more confident in its \
predictions, and is therefore considered to be a better model. The training of LMs is carried out on large-scale text corpora, it can \
be considered that it has learned some common language patterns and text structures. Therefore, PPL can be used to measure how \
well a text conforms to common characteristics.
I used all variants of the open-source GPT-2 model except xl size to compute the PPL (both text-level and sentence-level PPLs) of the \
collected texts. It is observed that, regardless of whether it is at the text level or the sentence level, the content generated by LLMs \
have relatively lower PPLs compared to the text written by humans. LLM captured common patterns and structures in the text it was trained on, \
and is very good at reproducing them. As a result, text generated by LLMs have relatively concentrated low PPLs.
Humans have the ability to express themselves in a wide variety of ways, depending on the context, audience, and purpose of the text they are \
writing. This can include using creative or imaginative elements, such as metaphors, similes, and unique word choices, which can make it more \
difficult for GPT2 to predict.
### GLTR: Giant Language Model Test Room
This idea originates from the following paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1906.04043.pdf. It studies 3 tests to compute features of an input text. Their \
major assumption is that to generate fluent and natural-looking text, most decoding strategies sample high probability tokens from the head \
of the distribution. I selected the most powerful Test-2 feature, which is the number of tokens in the Top-10, Top-100, Top-1000, and 1000+ \
ranks from the LM predicted probability distributions.
### Modelling
Scikit-learn's VotingClassifier consisting of XGBClassifier, LGBMClassifier, CatBoostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier with default parameters\
"""
)
with gr.Column():
a1 = gr.Textbox( lines=7, label='Text', value=example )
button1 = gr.Button("πŸ€– Predict!")
gr.Markdown("Prediction:")
label1 = gr.Textbox(lines=1, label='Predicted Label')
score1 = gr.Textbox(lines=1, label='Predicted Probability')
button1.click(predict, inputs=[a1], outputs=[label1, score1])
demo.launch()