Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Authorship Attribution in Multilingual Machine-Generated Texts

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Existing authorship-attribution methods can be adapted to multilingual text, but they transfer poorly across language families and writing scripts.

desk verdict A solid first benchmark for multilingual machine-generated text authorship attribution, but the central in-language vs cross-lingual contrast rests on a split-disjointness detail the paper never reports. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01656 v2 pith:NJJ4FHDI submitted 2025-08-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.HCphysics.soc-ph

Lucio La Cava , Dominik Macko , Róbert Móro , Ivan Srba , Andrea Tagarelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.HCphysics.soc-ph
keywords machine-generatedtextattributionmultilingualauthorshipcross-lingualtransferabilityLLM-generateddetectionlanguagefamiliesandscriptscontrastivelearningfine-tunedencodersgenerator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Authorship attribution—deciding which of several large language models, or a human, wrote a given text—has mostly been studied in English. The paper formalizes two new tasks: multilingual attribution (ML-MGT), where training and test texts span many languages, and cross-lingual attribution (CL-MGT), where test languages are unseen during training. Using a balanced 18-language news corpus built from seven LLM generators plus a human class, it evaluates seven adapted detectors and finds that fine-tuned and contrastive models can reach macro-F1 above 0.9 when all languages are seen, while cross-lingual transfer drops sharply, especially between dissimilar language families or writing scripts. The authors argue that attribution methods are not language-agnostic: the linguistic properties of the target language and the identity of the generator jointly determine success. If the finding holds, deployed attribution systems trained only on English cannot be trusted for multilingual content.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a controlled train/test protocol built on two problem definitions. ML-MGT formalizes attribution as a multi-class mapping from text to one human plus seven machine classes; CL-MGT restricts the training languages to a proper subset of the test languages. The protocol uses macro-averaged F1—the mean per-class F1, so all eight classes count equally—and applies four training conditions: all 18 languages jointly, English only, Spanish only, Russian only, and a combined English-Spanish-Russian condition. The adapted detectors include a fine-tuned decoder, a contrastive learner built on a multilingual encoder, fine-tuned multilingual and English-only encoders, a statistical ensemble, and two zero-shot statistical detectors. Comparing these conditions reveals which parts of the performance gap come from language family, writing script, or generator identity.

What would settle it

Build an equivalent balanced corpus with the same seven generators and human class but in held-out languages from other families or from a different domain, train the best detector on Russian and on English, and measure macro-F1 on the distant-script targets. The paper's central claims would fail if Russian's transfer advantage disappeared, or if a script-distant target matched Slavic-Cyrillic performance, since both results would show that family and script distance are not the controlling factors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that multilingual authorship attribution is feasible but cross-lingual transferability is the bottleneck. The authors define ML-MGT as an 8-way classification task (7 LLMs plus human) over a language set and CL-MGT as the same task with a disjoint subset of languages at test time. Across 18 languages from eight families and five scripts, the best adapted models—a fine-tuned decoder and a contrastive learner—achieve 0.90 to 0.93 macro F1 in the fully multilingual setting, whereas zero-shot statistical detectors stay between 0.16 and 0.45. Transfer results differ: Russian-trained models generalize best, with the top decoder reaching 0.68 overall macro F1 (plus 0.25 over English-trained and plus 0.12 over Spanish-trained), English-trained models generalize worst, and Greek, Arabic, and Chinese remain hard targets for every training language. The paper concludes that existing methods are not language-agnostic and that generator identity—for example, the predictable catch-all behavior of certain models under uncertainty—shapes attribution errors as much as language does.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the balanced 18-language, seven-generator news dataset represents real-world multilingual machine-generated text well enough that the observed transfer failures are about language and generator identity, not about the dataset's domain or language choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trained on all 18 languages at once, the best two detectors keep macro-F1 above 0.90 in every tested language, so multilingual attribution is achievable when target languages are available in training.
  • Off-the-shelf statistical detectors designed for binary machine-text detection are effectively unusable for attribution, with macro-F1 scores between 0.16 and 0.45 and near-collapse on non-Latin scripts.
  • Training on English is the weakest cross-lingual strategy; training on Russian transfers best overall, with a large gap in overall macro-F1 for the top decoder (0.68 versus 0.36).
  • Combining English, Spanish, and Russian training helps Germanic and Romance targets but still leaves Greek, Arabic, and Chinese below about 0.5 macro F1, so multi-language training does not solve cross-lingual attribution.
  • Generator identity drives errors: two architecturally related models are the most confused pair in unseen-language settings, and two other models become default catch-all predictions when the detector is uncertain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit is that training data for attribution should be selected by typological diversity rather than by resource abundance: Russian's strong transfer suggests morphologically rich languages carry reusable signals that high-resource analytic languages like English do not.
  • The paper's morphological explanation for Russian's advantage is testable: one could correlate the typological distance between each training language and each target language with the observed macro-F1 drop; a strong correlation would turn language selection into a predictive design choice.
  • The persistent weakness on Arabic, Greek, and Chinese across all training languages suggests a practical system should include at least one representative of each writing script in the training set or add script-specific adapters, rather than trusting a single multilingual model to transfer.
  • The catch-all classes point to a calibration problem: an abstention or none-of-the-above option, learned from the uncertainty patterns in the confusion matrices, might improve practical attribution more than adding another generator to the class set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper defines and investigates multilingual authorship attribution (ML-MGT) and cross-lingual authorship attribution (CL-MGT), evaluating seven methods over 18 languages and 8 author classes (7 LLMs plus human) from the MULTITuDE v3 dataset. The main empirical findings are that fine-tuned and contrastive methods (mdok, OTBDetector) achieve strong in-language macro-F1 scores, that cross-lingual transfer is generally poor and especially weak from English, that training on Russian transfers better than English or Spanish, and that generator identity affects attribution difficulty. The paper concludes that current monolingual AA methods are not readily language-agnostic and that multilingual and cross-lingual AA constitute open benchmark problems.

Significance. If its conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful first systematic evaluation of multilingual AA and establishes a falsifiable baseline: training on English alone is insufficient for cross-lingual attribution, and transfer depends on language family and script. The study's strengths include the formal problem definitions, the broad and balanced coverage of 18 languages representing multiple families and scripts, the comparison of seven diverse methods, the detailed supplementary per-generator results, and the transparent reporting of dataset selection and computational resources. However, the central claim about the difficulty of cross-lingual transfer is currently under-supported by two internal-validity concerns: the train/test split is not shown to be article/headline-disjoint, and all quantitative conclusions rest on single runs without significance tests or confidence intervals.

major comments (3)
  1. [Multilingual Data and Generator Models; Table 1] The paper never states whether the MULTITuDE v3 train/test split is disjoint at the article or headline level. Because MULTITuDE v3 contains, for each human news article, seven LLM-generated texts prompted by the same headline, an instance-level random split can place several variants of the same underlying article in both training and test. This would let models exploit headline, topic, or named-entity overlap as a shortcut in the in-language conditions of Table 2 and in the 'Internal' rows of Table 3, while cross-lingual test languages share no article identity with the training languages. Such an asymmetry would inflate the in-language scores and exaggerate the cross-lingual difficulty gap, which is the paper's central finding. The authors should either explicitly confirm that the splits are article-disjoint (with supporting statistics) or re-run the key experiments using an article-level split and report how the results change.
  2. [Cross-lingual Transferability Evaluation; Table 3] All results in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are single-run macro-F1 numbers, and the language-level paragraph states that 'training on Russian ... has a significantly greater impact than other languages' with +0.25 vs. English and +0.12 vs. Spanish. No standard deviations, confidence intervals, significance tests, or effect sizes are provided, and the phrase 'in terms of overall best results' is not defined. The observed differences may be within run-to-run variance, especially for the smaller statistical methods. The authors should report multiple seeds with variance estimates and provide a statistical test (or at least a clear definition of the reported aggregate) before making claims of significance.
  3. [Cross-lingual Transferability Evaluation; Tables 3 and 4] The claim that Russian training yields the best cross-lingual transfer is based primarily on the 'all' column of Table 3, which averages macro F1 over all 18 test languages. Of these, eight are Slavic (5 Slavic-Latin plus 3 Slavic-Cyrillic), so the average is strongly influenced by languages closely related to Russian. This confound is not controlled for in the headline comparison. The paper should either report family-balanced averages (e.g., one average per family in Table 4, then an average over families) or restrict the claim to the per-family evidence shown in Table 4, which already tells a more nuanced story.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results, Multilingual Suitability Evaluation] In the paragraph beginning 'As expected, detectors based on a multilngual pretraining', 'multilngual' should be 'multilingual.'
  2. [References] Several reference author names contain spurious spaces after initial letters (e.g., 'V asilatos', 'Y oo', 'V enkatraman', 'V erma'); these should be corrected.
  3. [Experimental Setup, RQ3] The sentence 'The fourth task corresponds to to investigate the impact of the various LLM generators' contains a duplicated 'to' and should be rephrased.
  4. [Results, Multilingual Suitability Evaluation] The statement 'the F1 score of OTBDetector only reduces by 3%' is ambiguous about whether the reduction is absolute or relative; it should be clarified (e.g., 0.93 to 0.90 macro F1 is an absolute drop of 0.03).
  5. [Methods and Dataset Selection] The two best-performing methods, mdok and OTBDetector, are developed by the same research group that curates MULTITuDE, and one author is a co-creator of the dataset. This is not itself a technical flaw, but the paper should explicitly disclose this home-field advantage and state whether any methods were selected or tuned after observing results on the test set.
  6. [Supplementary Results, Table S3] Table S3 reports weighted F1 while the main tables report macro F1; the paper should specify why these metrics differ and warn readers that the two are not directly comparable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the cross-lingual gap is an empirical comparison, not a fit; self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation study, not a derivation from first principles. Its central claim—that current authorship-attribution methods struggle to generalize across dissimilar language families and scripts—is supported by measured macro-F1 scores on the MULTITuDE v3 benchmark (Tables 2–4), and no reported score is obtained by fitting a parameter and then renaming that fit a prediction. The problem definitions (Problems 1 and 2) are operational definitions, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions. The method adaptations are implemented and evaluated on held-out test splits; in particular, OTBDetector and mdok are re-implemented and re-evaluated here, so their results do not reduce to the cited prior papers. Several self-citations appear, e.g., 'we adapt the OTBDetector (La Cava and Tagarelli 2025), which serves as the best-performing method in the recent OpenTuringBench benchmark', 'we adapt the promising mdok detector (Macko 2025)', and 'we resorted to the MULTITuDE (v3) dataset (Macko et al. 2025, 2024a)'. These are non-load-bearing for the central claim: MULTITuDE v3 is an external public resource, and the methods are evaluated independently in this paper. The paper itself acknowledges one comparison limitation: 'differences in the number of training samples per language may introduce bias into the comparison.' A more serious methodological risk, though not a circularity, is that article-level disjointness of the train/test splits is never reported; if the splits are instance-level random, a topic or headline shortcut could inflate in-language scores relative to cross-lingual scores. This would affect internal validity of the empirical contrast but does not make any prediction equal to its input by construction. Overall, no circular step was found; the score of 1 reflects only the density of self-citations, none of which carries the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. It relies on the representativeness of the MULTITuDE dataset, the scope of the news domain, the adequacy of the selected languages, and the suitability of the statistical feature models for non-English text. The language inclusion threshold is a hand-chosen free parameter that affects the study scope.

free parameters (1)
  • Language inclusion threshold = 95% of target 1000/300 samples per generator
    18 of 21 MULTITuDE languages were kept to those with balanced coverage and at least 95% of the target sample count; this hand-chosen threshold determines which languages are studied and shapes the cross-lingual conclusions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MULTITuDE v3 provides a consistent set of generators, generation settings, and domains across languages, enabling unbiased cross-lingual comparison.
    Stated in 'Multilingual Data and Generator Models'; if consistency fails, language-family differences may be confounded by data quality.
  • domain assumption The news domain is representative of texts that need authorship attribution in real scenarios.
    The dataset uses only news articles; the paper acknowledges future work in other domains, so the scope is limited to news.
  • domain assumption The 18 selected languages and 5 scripts capture enough diversity to draw conclusions about cross-lingual transfer.
    The paper generalizes from these languages; the exclusion of 3 languages with unbalanced data is not tested for its impact.
  • domain assumption The statistical feature models (mGPT-13B, Falcon-7B) provide meaningful signals in non-English, non-Latin languages.
    Fast-DetectGPT and Binoculars rely on these models; their English-centric training is noted as a cause of poor performance, yet they are still used to derive the 'statistical approaches struggle' conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Authorship Attribution in Multilingual Machine-Generated Texts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJJ4FHDI

@misc{pith2026250801656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Authorship Attribution in Multilingual Machine-Generated Texts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJJ4FHDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01656}
}
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have reached human-like fluency and coherence, distinguishing machine-generated text (MGT) from human-written content becomes increasingly difficult. While early efforts in MGT detection have focused on binary classification, the growing landscape and diversity of LLMs require a more fine-grained yet challenging authorship attribution (AA), i.e., being able to identify the precise generator (LLM or human) behind a text. However, AA remains nowadays confined to a monolingual setting, with English being the most investigated one, overlooking the multilingual nature and usage of modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce the problem of Multilingual Authorship Attribution, which involves attributing texts to human or multiple LLM generators across diverse languages. Focusing on 18 languages -- covering multiple families and writing scripts -- and 8 generators (7 LLMs and the human-authored class), we investigate the multilingual suitability of monolingual AA methods in terms of their cross-lingual transferability, and the impact of generators on attribution performance. Our results reveal that while certain monolingual AA methods can be adapted to multilingual settings, significant limitations and challenges remain, particularly in transferring across diverse language families, underscoring the complexity of multilingual AA and the need for more robust approaches to better match real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.01656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Language coverage of our multilingual AA study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (RQ3) Confusion matrices (represented as percentages for each row) for the two best-performing approaches, i.e., mdok (top) and OTBDetector (bottom), by varying the training data. Internal and External here indicate that the method has been evaluated on the same language as training and on all but the training language, respectively. Numbers in the diagonal indicate the percentage of correct predictions. LLM generat… view at source ↗

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. When New Generators Arrive: Lifelong Machine-Generated Text Attribution via Ridge Feature Transfer

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    RidgeFT enables replay-free lifelong MGT attribution via frozen encoder, class-wise sufficient statistics, covariance calibration, and closed-form ridge regression updates, outperforming baselines on macro-F1 and rete...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, M \'e rouane Debbah, \'E tienne Goffinet, Daniel Hesslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, and 1 others. 2023. The falcon series of open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16867

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Fast-DetectGPT : Efficient zero-shot detection of machine-generated text via conditional probability curvature. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Amrita Bhattacharjee, Tharindu Kumarage, Raha Moraffah, and Huan Liu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 C on DA : Contrastive domain adaptation for AI -generated text detection . In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.40 2023

  4. [4]

    Amrita Bhattacharjee and Huan Liu. 2024. Fighting Fire with Fire: Can ChatGPT Detect AI-generated Text? SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 25(2):14–21

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Amrita Bhattacharjee, Raha Moraffah, Joshua Garland, and Huan Liu. 2024. Eagle: A domain generalization framework for ai-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15690

    arXiv 2024

  6. [7]

    S \'e bastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, and 1 others. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712

    arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ccxD4mtkTU Can llm-generated misinformation be detected? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net

    work page 2024

  8. [9]

    Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzm \'a n, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computat...

    work page 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [10]

    Evan Crothers, Nathalie Japkowicz, and Herna L Viktor. 2023. Machine-generated text: A comprehensive survey of threat models and detection methods. IEEE Access

    2023

  2. [12]

    Liam Dugan, Alyssa Hwang, Filip Trhl \'i k, Andrew Zhu, Josh Magnus Ludan, Hainiu Xu, Daphne Ippolito, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.674 RAID : A shared benchmark for robust evaluation of machine-generated text detectors . In Proceed...

    2024 doi

  3. [13]

    Sebastian Gehrmann, Hendrik Strobelt, and Alexander Rush. 2019. GLTR : Statistical detection and visualization of generated text. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Li...

    2019

  4. [14]

    Xun Guo, Yongxin He, Shan Zhang, Ting Zhang, Wanquan Feng, Haibin Huang, and Chongyang Ma. 2024. Detective: Detecting AI -generated text via multi-level contrastive learning. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  5. [15]

    Abhimanyu Hans, Avi Schwarzschild, Valeriia Cherepanova, Hamid Kazemi, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=axl3FAkpik Spotting llms with binoculars: Zero-shot detection of machine-generated text . In Forty-fir...

    2024

  6. [16]

    Xinlei He, Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3658644.3670344 Mgtbench: Benchmarking machine-generated text detection . In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '24, pa...

    2024

  7. [17]

    Baixiang Huang, Canyu Chen, and Kai Shu. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715073.3715076 Authorship attribution in the era of llms: Problems, methodologies, and challenges . SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 26(2):21–43

    2025

  8. [18]

    Oliver A. Iggesen. 2013. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 Number of cases (v2020.4) . In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath, editors, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo

    2013 doi

  9. [19]

    Daphne Ippolito, Daniel Duckworth, Chris Callison-Burch, and Douglas Eck. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.164 Automatic detection of generated text is easiest when humans are fooled . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

    2020 doi

  10. [20]

    Hancock, and Mor Naaman

    Maurice Jakesch, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2023. Human heuristics for ai-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(11):e2208839120

    2023

  11. [21]

    Ganesh Jawahar, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and Laks Lakshmanan, V.S. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.208 Automatic detection of machine generated text: A critical survey . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 22...

    2020 doi

  12. [22]

    Zae Myung Kim, Kwang Lee, Preston Zhu, Vipul Raheja, and Dongyeop Kang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.298 Threads of subtlety: Detecting machine-generated texts through discourse motifs . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Comput...

    2024 doi

  13. [23]

    John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. A watermark for large language models. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 17061--17084

    2023

  14. [24]

    Lucio La Cava , Davide Costa, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA240862 Is contrasting all you need? contrastive learning for the detection and attribution of ai-generated text . In ECAI 2024 - 27th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 19-24 Oct...

    2024 doi

  15. [25]

    Lucio La Cava and Andrea Tagarelli. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1354 O pen T uring B ench: An open-model-based benchmark and framework for machine-generated text detection and attribution . In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    2025 doi

  16. [26]

    Thomas Lavergne, Tanguy Urvoy, and Fran c ois Yvon. 2008. Detecting fake content with relative entropy scoring. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse - Volume 377, PAN'08, page 27–31, Aachen, DEU. CE...

    2008

  17. [27]

    Xiaoze Liu, Ting Sun, Tianyang Xu, Feijie Wu, Cunxiang Wang, Xiaoqian Wang, and Jing Gao. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.98 SHIELD : Evaluation and defense strategies for copyright compliance in LLM text generation . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on ...

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa : A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Dominik Macko. 2025. mdok of KInIT : Robustly fine-tuned llm for binary and multiclass ai-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01702

    2025

  20. [30]

    Dominik Macko, Jakub Kop \'a l, Robert Moro, and Ivan Srba. 2025 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.36 M ulti S ocial: Multilingual benchmark of machine-generated text detection of social-media texts . In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for...

    2025 doi

  21. [31]

    Dominik Macko, Jakub Kopal, Robert Moro, and Ivan Srba. 2025 b . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15519413 Multitudev3 . Zenodo, 15519413

    2025 doi

  22. [32]

    Dominik Macko, Robert Moro, Adaku Uchendu, Jason Lucas, Michiharu Yamashita, Mat \'u s Pikuliak, Ivan Srba, Thai Le, Dongwon Lee, Jakub Simko, and Maria Bielikova. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.616 MULTIT u DE : Large-scale multilingual machine-generated te...

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    Dominik Macko, Robert Moro, Adaku Uchendu, Ivan Srba, Jason S Lucas, Michiharu Yamashita, Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Dongwon Lee, Jakub Simko, and Maria Bielikova. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.369 Authorship obfuscation in multilingual machine-generated text...

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    Yibo Miao, Hongcheng Gao, Hao Zhang, and Zhijie Deng. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.366 Efficient detection of LLM -generated texts with a B ayesian surrogate model . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 6118--6130...

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 24950--24962. PMLR

    2023

  26. [36]

    Areg Mikael Sarvazyan, Jos \'e \'A ngel Gonz \'a lez, Marc Franco-Salvador, Francisco Rangel, Berta Chulvi, and Paolo Rosso. 2023. Overview of autextification at iberlef 2023: Detection and attribution of machine-generated text in multiple domains. Procesamiento del Lenguaje N...

    2023

  27. [37]

    Tatiana Shamardina, Vladislav Mikhailov, Daniil Chernianskii, Alena Fenogenova, Marat Saidov, Anastasiya Valeeva, Tatiana Shavrina, Ivan Smurov, Elena Tutubalina, and Ekaterina Artemova. 2022. https://doi.org/10.28995/2075-7182-2022-21-497-511 Findings of the the RuATD Shared ...

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    Oleh Shliazhko, Alena Fenogenova, Maria Tikhonova, Anastasia Kozlova, Vladislav Mikhailov, and Tatiana Shavrina. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00633 m GPT : Few-shot learners go multilingual . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:58--79

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Radford, Gretchen Krueger, Jong Wook Kim, Sarah Kreps, and 1 others. 2019. Release strategies and the social impacts of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09203

    2019 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Michal Spiegel and Dominik Macko. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-demos.17 IMGTB : A framework for machine-generated text detection benchmarking . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrat...

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    Jinyan Su, Terry Zhuo, Di Wang, and Preslav Nakov. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.827 D etect LLM : Leveraging log rank information for zero-shot detection of machine-generated text . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 20...

    2023 doi

  32. [42]

    Ruixiang Tang, Yu-Neng Chuang, and Xia Hu. 2024. The science of detecting llm-generated text. Communications of the ACM, 67(4):50--59

    2024

  33. [43]

    Zhen Tao, Yanfang Chen, Dinghao Xi, Zhiyu Li, and Wei Xu. 2024. Towards reliable detection of LLM -generated texts: A comprehensive evaluation framework with CUDRT . arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09056

    2024 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Eduard Tulchinskii, Kristian Kuznetsov, Kushnareva Laida, Daniil Cherniavskii, Sergey Nikolenko, Evgeny Burnaev, Serguei Barannikov, and Irina Piontkovskaya. 2023. Intrinsic dimension estimation for robust detection of AI -generated texts. In Proc. of Conf. on Advances in Neur...

    2023

  36. [46]

    Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, and Dongwon Lee. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3606274.3606276 Attribution and obfuscation of neural text authorship: A data mining perspective . SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 25(1):1–18

    2023

  37. [47]

    Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, and Dongwon Lee. 2023 b . Toproberta: Topology-aware authorship attribution of deepfake texts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12934

    2023 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Adaku Uchendu, Thai Le, Kai Shu, and Dongwon Lee. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.673 Authorship attribution for neural text generation . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8384--8395, Onli...

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    Daniel Varab and Natalie Schluter. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.797 M assive S umm: a very large-scale, very multilingual, news summarisation dataset . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10150--...

    2021 doi

  40. [50]

    Christoforos Vasilatos, Manaar Alam, Talal Rahwan, Yasir Zaki, and Michail Maniatakos. 2023. HowkGPT: Investigating the detection of ChatGPT-generated university student homework through context-aware perplexity analysis . arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18226

    2023 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Saranya Venkatraman, Adaku Uchendu, and Dongwon Lee. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.8 GPT -who: An information density-based machine-generated text detector . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 103--115, Mexic...

    2024 doi

  42. [52]

    Vivek Verma, Eve Fleisig, Nicholas Tomlin, and Dan Klein. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.95 Ghostbuster: Detecting text ghostwritten by large language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa...

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    Pengyu Wang, Linyang Li, Ke Ren, Botian Jiang, Dong Zhang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.73/ S eq XGPT : Sentence-level AI -generated text detection . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pa...

    2023

  44. [54]

    Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Giovanni Puccetti, and Thomas Arnold. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.semeval-1.279 S em E val-2024 task 8: Multidomain, multimodel and multilin...

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov, Jinyan Su, Artem Shelmanov, Akim Tsvigun, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Tarek Mahmoud, Giovanni Puccetti, Thomas Arnold, Alham Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.218 M 4 G...

    2024 doi

  46. [56]

    Junchao Wu, Shu Yang, Runzhe Zhan, Yulin Yuan, Lidia Sam Chao, and Derek Fai Wong. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00549 A survey on LLM -generated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions . Computational Linguistics, 51(1):275--338

    2025 doi

  47. [57]

    Zhendong Wu and Hui Xiang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3226684/v1 MFD : Multi-feature detection of LLM -generated text . PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    Xiaojun Xu, Yuanshun Yao, and Yang Liu. 2024. Learning to watermark llm-generated text via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10553

    2024 arXiv

  49. [59]

    KiYoon Yoo, Wonhyuk Ahn, Jiho Jang, and Nojun Kwak. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.117 Robust multi-bit natural language watermarking through invariant features . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volum...

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    Aneta Zugecova, Dominik Macko, Ivan Srba, Robert Moro, Jakub Kop \'a l, Katar \'i na Marcin c inov \'a , and Mat \'u s Mesar c \'i k. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.38 Evaluation of LLM vulnerabilities to being misused for personalized disinformation generatio...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.