Osama Mohammed Afzal

Neha Sengupta, Sunil Kumar Sahu, Bokang Jia et al. · berkeley

We introduce Jais and Jais-chat, new state-of-the-art Arabic-centric foundation and instruction-tuned open generative large language models (LLMs). The models are based on the GPT-3 decoder-only architecture and are pretrained on a mixture of Arabic and English texts, including source code in various programming languages. With 13 billion parameters, they demonstrate better knowledge and reasoning capabilities in Arabic than any existing open Arabic and multilingual models by a sizable margin, based on extensive evaluation. Moreover, the models are competitive in English compared to English-centric open models of similar size, despite being trained on much less English data. We provide a detailed description of the training, the tuning, the safety alignment, and the evaluation of the models. We release two open versions of the model -- the foundation Jais model, and an instruction-tuned Jais-chat variant -- with the aim of promoting research on Arabic LLMs. Available at https://huggingface.co/inception-mbzuai/jais-13b-chat

Yuxia Wang, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Zain Muhammad Mujahid et al.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels concerning the verifiability and factual inconsistencies found in LLM outputs. We further construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document, aiming to facilitate the evaluation of automatic fact-checking systems. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity.ai are struggling to identify false claims, with the best F1=0.63 by this annotation solution based on GPT-4. Annotation tool, benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.

Mervat Abassy, Kareem Elozeiri, Alexander Aziz et al.

The ease of access to large language models (LLMs) has enabled a widespread of machine-generated texts, and now it is often hard to tell whether a piece of text was human-written or machine-generated. This raises concerns about potential misuse, particularly within educational and academic domains. Thus, it is important to develop practical systems that can automate the process. Here, we present one such system, LLM-DetectAIve, designed for fine-grained detection. Unlike most previous work on machine-generated text detection, which focused on binary classification, LLM-DetectAIve supports four categories: (i) human-written, (ii) machine-generated, (iii) machine-written, then machine-humanized, and (iv) human-written, then machine-polished. Category (iii) aims to detect attempts to obfuscate the fact that a text was machine-generated, while category (iv) looks for cases where the LLM was used to polish a human-written text, which is typically acceptable in academic writing, but not in education. Our experiments show that LLM-DetectAIve can effectively identify the above four categories, which makes it a potentially useful tool in education, academia, and other domains. LLM-DetectAIve is publicly accessible at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/LLM-DetectAIve. The video describing our system is available at https://youtu.be/E8eT_bE7k8c.

Yuxia Wang, Artem Shelmanov, Jonibek Mansurov et al.

We present the GenAI Content Detection Task~1 -- a shared task on binary machine generated text detection, conducted as a part of the GenAI workshop at COLING 2025. The task consists of two subtasks: Monolingual (English) and Multilingual. The shared task attracted many participants: 36 teams made official submissions to the Monolingual subtask during the test phase and 26 teams -- to the Multilingual. We provide a comprehensive overview of the data, a summary of the results -- including system rankings and performance scores -- detailed descriptions of the participating systems, and an in-depth analysis of submissions. https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/COLING-2025-Workshop-on-MGT-Detection-Task1

Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capability to generate fluent responses to a wide variety of user queries. However, this has also raised concerns about the potential misuse of such texts in journalism, education, and academia. In this study, we strive to create automated systems that can detect machine-generated texts and pinpoint potential misuse. We first introduce a large-scale benchmark \textbf{M4}, which is a multi-generator, multi-domain, and multi-lingual corpus for machine-generated text detection. Through an extensive empirical study of this dataset, we show that it is challenging for detectors to generalize well on instances from unseen domains or LLMs. In such cases, detectors tend to misclassify machine-generated text as human-written. These results show that the problem is far from solved and that there is a lot of room for improvement. We believe that our dataset will enable future research towards more robust approaches to this pressing societal problem. The dataset is available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/M4.

Yuxia Wang, Jonibek Mansurov, Petar Ivanov et al.

We present the results and the main findings of SemEval-2024 Task 8: Multigenerator, Multidomain, and Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detection. The task featured three subtasks. Subtask A is a binary classification task determining whether a text is written by a human or generated by a machine. This subtask has two tracks: a monolingual track focused solely on English texts and a multilingual track. Subtask B is to detect the exact source of a text, discerning whether it is written by a human or generated by a specific LLM. Subtask C aims to identify the changing point within a text, at which the authorship transitions from human to machine. The task attracted a large number of participants: subtask A monolingual (126), subtask A multilingual (59), subtask B (70), and subtask C (30). In this paper, we present the task, analyze the results, and discuss the system submissions and the methods they used. For all subtasks, the best systems used LLMs.

Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen et al.

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

Osama Mohammed Afzal, Preslav Nakov, Tom Hope et al.

Novelty assessment is a central yet understudied aspect of peer review, particularly in high volume fields like NLP where reviewer capacity is increasingly strained. We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages: content extraction from submissions, retrieval and synthesis of related work, and structured comparison for evidence based assessment. Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews and captures key patterns such as independent claim verification and contextual reasoning. Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions with human annotated reviewer novelty assessments, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions - substantially outperforming existing LLM based baselines. The method produces detailed, literature aware analyses and improves consistency over ad hoc reviewer judgments. These results highlight the potential for structured LLM assisted approaches to support more rigorous and transparent peer review without displacing human expertise. Data and code are made available.

Jad Doughman, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Hawau Olamide Toyin et al.

Recent improvements in the quality of the generations by large language models have spurred research into identifying machine-generated text. Such work often presents high-performing detectors. However, humans and machines can produce text in different styles and domains, yet the performance impact of such on machine generated text detection systems remains unclear. In this paper, we audit the classification performance for detecting machine-generated text by evaluating on texts with varying writing styles. We find that classifiers are highly sensitive to stylistic changes and differences in text complexity, and in some cases degrade entirely to random classifiers. We further find that detection systems are particularly susceptible to misclassify easy-to-read texts while they have high performance for complex texts, leading to concerns about the reliability of detection systems. We recommend that future work attends to stylistic factors and reading difficulty levels of human-written and machine-generated text.

Komal Mariam, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Wajahat Hussain et al.

Unavailability of large training datasets is a bottleneck that needs to be overcome to realize the true potential of deep learning in histopathology applications. Although slide digitization via whole slide imaging scanners has increased the speed of data acquisition, labeling of virtual slides requires a substantial time investment from pathologists. Eye gaze annotations have the potential to speed up the slide labeling process. This work explores the viability and timing comparisons of eye gaze labeling compared to conventional manual labeling for training object detectors. Challenges associated with gaze based labeling and methods to refine the coarse data annotations for subsequent object detection are also discussed. Results demonstrate that gaze tracking based labeling can save valuable pathologist time and delivers good performance when employed for training a deep object detector. Using the task of localization of Keratin Pearls in cases of oral squamous cell carcinoma as a test case, we compare the performance gap between deep object detectors trained using hand-labelled and gaze-labelled data. On average, compared to `Bounding-box' based hand-labeling, gaze-labeling required $57.6\%$ less time per label and compared to `Freehand' labeling, gaze-labeling required on average $85\%$ less time per label.