SynSciPass: detecting appropriate uses of scientific text generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Approaches to machine generated text detection tend to focus on binary classification of human versus machine written text. In the scientific domain where publishers might use these models to examine manuscripts under submission, misclassification has the potential to cause harm to authors. Additionally, authors may appropriately use text generation models such as with the use of assistive technologies like translation tools. In this setting, a binary classification scheme might be used to flag appropriate uses of assistive text generation technology as simply machine generated which is a cause of concern. In our work, we simulate this scenario by presenting a state-of-the-art detector trained on the DAGPap22 with machine translated passages from Scielo and find that the model performs at random. Given this finding, we develop a framework for dataset development that provides a nuanced approach to detecting machine generated text by having labels for the type of technology used such as for translation or paraphrase resulting in the construction of SynSciPass. By training the same model that performed well on DAGPap22 on SynSciPass, we show that not only is the model more robust to domain shifts but also is able to uncover the type of technology used for machine generated text. Despite this, we conclude that current datasets are neither comprehensive nor realistic enough to understand how these models would perform in the wild where manuscript submissions can come from many unknown or novel distributions, how they would perform on scientific full-texts rather than small passages, and what might happen when there is a mix of appropriate and inappropriate uses of natural language generation.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2022.
Builds on
16 of 33 references.
References · 16
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,565
- 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 478
- 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 470
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 166
- 2021Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Surveycited by 107
- 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
- 2019The Limitations of Stylometry for Detecting Machine-Generated Fake Newscited by 63
- 2020Attacking Neural Text Detectorscited by 39
4 more
- 2022A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publicationscited by 18
- 2021Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journalscited by 17
- 2022Are You Robert or RoBERTa? Deceiving Online Authorship Attribution Models Using Neural Text Generatorscited by 14
- 2019A Large Parallel Corpus of Full-Text Scientific Articlescited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 1.
10 papers.
- 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 79
- 2024Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Surveycited by 76
- 2022Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 41
- 2023AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content Generationcited by 21
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Sentences in Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Texts: Challenges, Strategies, and Insightscited by 21
- 2023TOPFORMER: Topology-Aware Authorship Attribution of Deepfake Texts with Diverse Writing Stylescited by 10
- 2024Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Textscited by 10
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviewscited by 8
- 2025Increasing the Robustness of the Fine-tuned Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 8
- 2024Is the Digital Forensics and Incident Response Pipeline Ready for Text-Based Threats in LLM Era?cited by 1
- 2025Increasing the Robustness of the Fine-tuned Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectors19 Mar 2025
- 2024Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Texts18 Oct 2024
- 2024'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who will watch the watchmen? On Detecting AI-generated peer-reviews13 Oct 2024
- 2024Is the Digital Forensics and Incident Response Pipeline Ready for Text-Based Threats in LLM Era?25 Jul 2024
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Sentences in Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Texts: Challenges, Strategies, and Insights6 Mar 2024
- 2024Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Survey22 Jan 2024
- 2023TOPFORMER: Topology-Aware Authorship Attribution of Deepfake Texts with Diverse Writing Styles22 Sep 2023
- 2023AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content Generation24 Jan 2023
- 2022Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspective19 Oct 2022
- 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods13 Oct 2022