Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Multi-head Span-based Detector for AI-generated Fragments in Scientific Papers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.07343 v1 pith:SJSHVGIK submitted 2024-11-11 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords scientificcompetitionfragmentsai-generatedapproachencoderscoretask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper describes a system designed to distinguish between AI-generated and human-written scientific excerpts in the DAGPap24 competition hosted within the Fourth Workshop on Scientific Document Processing. In this competition the task is to find artificially generated token-level text fragments in documents of a scientific domain. Our work focuses on the use of a multi-task learning architecture with two heads. The application of this approach is justified by the specificity of the task, where class spans are continuous over several hundred characters. We considered different encoder variations to obtain a state vector for each token in the sequence, as well as a variation in splitting fragments into tokens to further feed into the input of a transform-based encoder. This approach allows us to achieve a 9% quality improvement relative to the baseline solution score on the development set (from 0.86 to 0.95) using the average macro F1-score, as well as a score of 0.96 on a closed test part of the dataset from the competition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?

    cs.CR 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent generating fabricated papers without experiments gets acceptance-level scores from LLM reviewers up to 82% of the time, and simple integrity-checking mitigations barely beat random.

Pith tools