Papers › A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publications
A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publications
Vijini Liyanage, Davide Buscaldi, Adeline Nazarenko
Automatic text generation based on neural language models has achieved performance levels that make the generated text almost indistinguishable from those written by humans. Despite the value that text generation can have in various applications, it can also be employed for malicious tasks. The diffusion of such practices represent a threat to the quality of academic publishing. To address these problems, we propose in this paper two datasets comprised of artificially generated research content: a completely synthetic dataset and a partial text substitution dataset. In the first case, the content is completely generated by the GPT-2 model after a short prompt extracted from original papers. The partial or hybrid dataset is created by replacing several sentences of abstracts with sentences that are generated by the Arxiv-NLP model. We evaluate the quality of the datasets comparing the generated texts to aligned original texts using fluency metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE. The more natural the artificial texts seem, the more difficult they are to detect and the better is the benchmark. We also evaluate the difficulty of the task of distinguishing original from generated text by using state-of-the-art classification models.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections