Enhancing Digital Investigation: The Role of Generative AI (ChatGPT) in Evidence Identification and Analysis in Digital Forensics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) has garnered considerable attention across disciplines such as science, digital forensics, and literature. Advanced large language modeling systems (LLMs), including ChatGPT and Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA), have become essential tools in digital forensics due to their sophisticated Natural Language Processing (NLP) capabilities. These systems enable efficient processing of extensive text datasets, sentiment analysis, and real-time threat detection. This research explores the effectiveness of AI-driven methods in digital forensics by conducting comprehensive tests on various applications, such as artifact comprehension, evidence search, and incident response. The results confirm the transformative role of ChatGPT in enhancing the speed and accuracy of investigation, as the study showed that the system can analyze data and images related to crimes and provide comprehensive reports. Not only does he process evidence, but it can also extract complete conversations related to crime, determining when it occurred and whether it was planned. The system meticulously analyzes the data sent to it to provide additional details such as possible motives and behavior of suspects. It provides investigators with an in-depth understanding that can be used at various stages of the investigation, and even in the courts as credible evidence. This approach reflects the importance of responsible adoption of the system while offering guidelines for its responsible adoption and future development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it