pith. sign in

arxiv: 2206.01583 · v1 · pith:RBTNXLFFnew · submitted 2022-06-03 · 💻 cs.CL

Findings of the The RuATD Shared Task 2022 on Artificial Text Detection in Russian

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords texttaskhumansharedevaluationgenerationartificialbaselines
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

We present the shared task on artificial text detection in Russian, which is organized as a part of the Dialogue Evaluation initiative, held in 2022. The shared task dataset includes texts from 14 text generators, i.e., one human writer and 13 text generative models fine-tuned for one or more of the following generation tasks: machine translation, paraphrase generation, text summarization, text simplification. We also consider back-translation and zero-shot generation approaches. The human-written texts are collected from publicly available resources across multiple domains. The shared task consists of two sub-tasks: (i) to determine if a given text is automatically generated or written by a human; (ii) to identify the author of a given text. The first task is framed as a binary classification problem. The second task is a multi-class classification problem. We provide count-based and BERT-based baselines, along with the human evaluation on the first sub-task. A total of 30 and 8 systems have been submitted to the binary and multi-class sub-tasks, correspondingly. Most teams outperform the baselines by a wide margin. We publicly release our codebase, human evaluation results, and other materials in our GitHub repository (https://github.com/dialogue-evaluation/RuATD).

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Is Human-Like Text Liked by Humans? Multilingual Human Detection and Preference Against AI

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Humans detect AI-generated text at 87.6% accuracy across 9 languages and 9 domains, outperforming prior near-random results, and do not always prefer human-written text when the source is unclear.