A Psycholinguistics-inspired Method to Counter IP Theft Using Fake Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intellectual property (IP) theft is a growing problem. We build on prior work to deter IP theft by generating n fake versions of a technical document so a thief has to expend time and effort in identifying the correct document. Our new SbFAKE framework proposes, for the first time, a novel combination of language processing, optimization, and the psycholinguistic concept of surprisal to generate a set of such fakes. We start by combining psycholinguistic-based surprisal scores and optimization to generate two bilevel surprisal optimization problems (an Explicit one and a simpler Implicit one) whose solutions correspond directly to the desired set of fakes. As bilevel problems are usually hard to solve, we then show that these two bilevel surprisal optimization problems can each be reduced to equivalent surprisal-based linear programs. We performed detailed parameter tuning experiments and identified the best parameters for each of these algorithms. We then tested these two variants of SbFAKE (with their best parameter settings) against the best performing prior work in the field. Our experiments show that SbFAKE is able to more effectively generate convincing fakes than past work. In addition, we show that replacing words in an original document with words having similar surprisal scores generates greater levels of deception.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".