Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39896415›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Spot the bot: the inverse problems of NLP.

Vasilii A Gromov, Quynh Nhu Dang, Alexandra S Kogan, Assel Yerbolova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vasilii A GromovHSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Quynh Nhu DangHSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Alexandra S KoganHSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Assel YerbolovaHSE University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article concerns the problem of distinguishing human-written and bot-generated texts. In contrast to the classical problem formulation, in which the focus falls on one type of bot only, we consider the problem of distinguishing texts written by any person from those generated by any bot; this involves analysing the large-scale, coarse-grained structure of the language semantic space. To construct the training and test datasets, we propose to separate not the texts of bots, but bots themselves, so the test sample contains the texts of those bots (and people) that were not in the training sample. We aim to find efficient and versatile features, rather than a complex classification model architecture that only deals with a particular type of bots. In the study we derive features for human-written and bot generated texts, using clustering (Wishart and K-Means, as well as fuzzy variations) and nonlinear dynamic techniques (entropy-complexity measures). We then deliberately use the simplest of classifiers (support vector machine, decision tree, random forest) and the derived characteristics to identify whether the text is human-written or not. The large-scale simulation shows good classification results (a classification quality of over 96%), although varying for languages of different language families.

Indexed as

Bot detectionClusteringInverse problemsNLPStrange attractors

Identifiers

PMID39896415
PMCPMC11784749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.