The study evaluates machine‑generated text detectors on scientific literature, finding that many detectors perform near perfectly on certain benchmarks due to superficial formatting cues rather than genuine linguistic differences. A logistic regression using 27 superficial features achieved macro‑F1 scores between 0.833 and 0.997, outperforming other detectors on arXiv subsets. The most powerful cue was the PDF extraction artifact—human texts preserve line breaks while generated texts appear as a single block—allowing classification at 0.996 AUC. By introducing format counterfactuals and normalizing formatting, the authors demonstrate that re‑wrapping machine‑written abstracts can flip 20–27% of detector decisions, reducing the generalization gap and improving out‑of‑domain performance.
By Anastasia Voznyuk, Andrey Grabovoy
arXiv:2609.14352v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI-generated image detection has attracted increasing attention, but existing evaluations mainly focus on natural images, leaving AI-generated document...
By Zhangjie Fu, Jiazhen Yan, Yuanwen Chen, Xinquan Yu, Yanzhe Li, Hui Jiang, Lei Gao, Chenfu Bao
arXiv:2604.18508v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Many recent document embedding models are trained on document-as-image representations, embedding rendered pages as images rather than the un...
By Ghazal Khalighinejad, Raghuveer Thirukovalluru, Alexander H. Oh, Bhuwan Dhingra
Distinguishing machine-generated text (MGT) from human-written text (HWT) becomes increasingly important due to potential misuse. However, most supervised detectors often degrade out-of-domain (OOD) a...
arXiv:2606. 24112v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal misinformation detection is increasingly important because viral posts now combine long multilingual narratives, several images, mixed provenance, and subtle text--image framing errors.
By Chenhao Dang, Dantong Zhu, Jun Yang, Conghui He, Weijia Li
The paper introduces Loud and Clear (LoC), a method that enhances multimodal document retrieval-augmented generation by fully utilizing visual token capacity and refining retrieved pages to highlight evidence. LoC combines higher-resolution pages with OCR of query-relevant regions, achieving significant accuracy gains over eight prior methods on multiple benchmarks. The study demonstrates that the way retrieved pages are presented to the generator is a critical bottleneck beyond retrieval itself.
By Eunchan Jo, Seounghyun Jang, Sangwoo Mo
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.
By Zhengyang Shan, Yukyung Lee, Sophie Hao
GPT4o-Receipt is a benchmark dataset of 1,235 receipt images that pairs GPT‑4o‑generated receipts with authentic ones from established datasets. The study evaluates five state‑of‑the‑art multimodal LLMs and a 30‑annotator crowdsourced perceptual study, revealing that humans are better at spotting AI artifacts yet perform worse at binary detection than models like Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 2.5 Flash. The paradox is explained by the fact that the dominant forensic signals—arithmetic errors—are invisible to visual inspection but can be quickly verified by LLMs.
By Yan Zhang, Simiao Ren, Ankit Raj, En Wei, Dennis Ng, Alex Shen, Jiayu Xue, Yuxin Zhang, Evelyn Marotta
The paper "Science or Slop?: Benchmarking and Mitigating Scientific Slop in AI-Generated Papers" introduces SciSlopBench, a dataset of 390 AI‑generated papers paired with human‑written counterparts, and defines six measures across Structure, Argument, and Artifacts to detect scientific slop. The authors show that these measures can identify AI papers with 85.9% accuracy and that higher slop correlates with lower ICLR ratings and distinguishes rejected from accepted papers. They also propose SciSlopHarness, a framework that guides a fixed LLM to revise only evidence‑supported sections, reducing the AI‑human gap by 63% without human reference targets.
By Yerim Oh, Young-Jun Lee, Jaewoo Ahn, Gunhee Kim, Dongyeop Kang
arXiv:2609.15369v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Word-level detectors identify unedited AI-generated text almost perfectly, but the literature documents their brittleness under rewording, and a word-l...
By Jochen Madler (Sitefire)
The paper investigates the gap between retrieval and reading in document vision‑language models, showing that even when the correct page is retrieved, the model often fails to use the text on that page. By comparing answers derived from page images alone versus images plus extracted OCR text, the authors demonstrate that adding OCR text can improve strict accuracy by 13 to 16 points on their FoveDoc‑Bench benchmark. The study also reveals that OCR benefits textual evidence but not charts or figures, and that its advantage diminishes as retrieval quality worsens.
By Qingtao Xia, Siyao Cheng, Jiahua Bao, Jiaxing Du, Jie Liu
arXiv:2607. 29539v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs).
By Gaetano Perrone, Simon Pietro Romano