45.9CLMay 29Code
Multilingual and Cross-Lingual Citation Needed Detection on Wikipedia for Lower-Resource LanguagesGerrit Quaremba, Amy Rechkemmer, Elizabeth Black et al.
In automated fact-checking (AFC), check-worthiness detection identifies claims requiring verification based on domain-specific criteria. On Wikipedia, this task instantiates as Citation Needed Detection (CND), which flags claims lacking supporting citations. However, existing research has largely overlooked lower-resource languages, and recent AFC pipelines rely on large language models (LLMs), which are inaccessible to low-resource organizations. We introduce MCN, a multilingual CND corpus spanning 18 languages across three resource levels, on which we conduct an extensive study of small decoder-based language models (SLMs). Our experiments show that SLMs fine-tuned with an encoder-style objective substantially outperform prompted LLMs across languages. We further present one of the first studies on cross-lingual CND, demonstrating that SLMs fine-tuned solely on English claims surpass LLMs, even with little to no target-language adaptation. Our findings have important implications for lower-resource Wikipedia communities and suggest that compact, task-specific models are preferable to LLMs for CND. We release all data and code at https://github.com/gerritq/mcn
59.3CLMay 29
TSM-Bench: Detecting LLM-Generated Text in Real-World Wikipedia Editing PracticesGerrit Quaremba, Elizabeth Black, Denny Vrandečić et al.
Automatically detecting machine-generated text (MGT) is critical to maintaining the knowledge integrity of user-generated content (UGC) platforms such as Wikipedia. Existing detection benchmarks primarily focus on \textit{generic} text generation tasks (e.g., ``Write an article about machine learning.''). However, editors frequently employ LLMs for specific writing tasks (e.g., summarisation). These \textit{task-specific} MGT instances tend to resemble human-written text more closely due to their constrained task formulation and contextual conditioning. In this work, we show that a range of SOTA MGT detectors struggle to identify task-specific MGT reflecting real-world editing on Wikipedia. We introduce \textsc{TSM-Bench}, a multilingual, multi-generator, and \textit{multi-task} benchmark for evaluating MGT detectors on common, real-world Wikipedia editing tasks. Our findings demonstrate that (\textit{i}) average detection accuracy drops by 10--40\% compared to prior benchmarks, and (\textit{ii}) a generalisation asymmetry exists: fine-tuning on task-specific data enables generalisation to generic data -- even across domains -- but not vice versa. We demonstrate that models fine-tuned exclusively on generic MGT overfit to superficial artefacts of machine generation. Our results suggest that, in contrast to prior benchmarks, most detectors remain unreliable for automated detection in real-world contexts such as UGC platforms. \textsc{TSM-Bench} therefore provides a critical foundation for developing and evaluating future models.
CLJul 4, 2025
WETBench: A Benchmark for Detecting Task-Specific Machine-Generated Text on WikipediaGerrit Quaremba, Elizabeth Black, Denny Vrandečić et al.
Given Wikipedia's role as a trusted source of high-quality, reliable content, concerns are growing about the proliferation of low-quality machine-generated text (MGT) produced by large language models (LLMs) on its platform. Reliable detection of MGT is therefore essential. However, existing work primarily evaluates MGT detectors on generic generation tasks rather than on tasks more commonly performed by Wikipedia editors. This misalignment can lead to poor generalisability when applied in real-world Wikipedia contexts. We introduce WETBench, a multilingual, multi-generator, and task-specific benchmark for MGT detection. We define three editing tasks, empirically grounded in Wikipedia editors' perceived use cases for LLM-assisted editing: Paragraph Writing, Summarisation, and Text Style Transfer, which we implement using two new datasets across three languages. For each writing task, we evaluate three prompts, generate MGT across multiple generators using the best-performing prompt, and benchmark diverse detectors. We find that, across settings, training-based detectors achieve an average accuracy of 78%, while zero-shot detectors average 58%. These results show that detectors struggle with MGT in realistic generation scenarios and underscore the importance of evaluating such models on diverse, task-specific data to assess their reliability in editor-driven contexts.