mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SynSciPass: detecting appropriate uses of scientific text generation

arXiv 2209.03742 ↗First posted 7 Sep 2022cs.CL cs.DLcited by 10

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

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,565
  3. 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
  4. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  5. 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 478
  6. 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 470
  7. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  8. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 166
  9. 2021Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Surveycited by 107
  10. 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
  11. 2019The Limitations of Stylometry for Detecting Machine-Generated Fake Newscited by 63
  12. 2020Attacking Neural Text Detectorscited by 39
4 more
  1. 2022A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publicationscited by 18
  2. 2021Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journalscited by 17
  3. 2022Are You Robert or RoBERTa? Deceiving Online Authorship Attribution Models Using Neural Text Generatorscited by 14
  4. 2019A Large Parallel Corpus of Full-Text Scientific Articlescited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 1.

10 papers.