I’m confused about how this aligns with the table saying that 42.7% of submissions have a Pangram score >=90% but only 31.1% were desk rejected or asked to provide additional evidence. If I’m understanding the post right, it seems like they adjusted Pangram settings until it stopping finding so much AI usage and then used their custom settings.
By default, Pangram is already pretty lenient and doesn’t find some AI usage, so this looks like they tried Pangram, realized that if they actually followed their policy (50% AI written seems like the right threshold for “substantially AI-written”) they’d have to reject 70% of papers, and then fiddled with settings until they got the result they wanted.
There are more details in Table 5 Decision Thresholds that I didnt quote. Basically 80%+ is rejected.
I’m confused about how this aligns with the table saying that 42.7% of submissions have a Pangram score >=90% but only 31.1% were desk rejected or asked to provide additional evidence. If I’m understanding the post right, it seems like they adjusted Pangram settings until it stopping finding so much AI usage and then used their custom settings.
By default, Pangram is already pretty lenient and doesn’t find some AI usage, so this looks like they tried Pangram, realized that if they actually followed their policy (50% AI written seems like the right threshold for “substantially AI-written”) they’d have to reject 70% of papers, and then fiddled with settings until they got the result they wanted.