The study examines how professional English editing influences AI text detectors’ false-positive rates for non-native academic writing. Using 135,389 pairs of original and edited manuscripts, researchers found that detector responses varied widely—some editors increased AI scores while others decreased them—and that score changes correlated with the extent of editing. These results highlight professional editing style as a key confounding factor in AI detection, complicating the distinction between AI authorship and linguistic style.
arXiv:2608. 11256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct.
arXiv:2601. 15828v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This study investigates whether professional translators without prior specialized training can reliably identify short stories generated in Italian by artificial intelligence (AI).
arXiv:2606. 06481v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI writing assistants become increasingly integrated into real-world drafting and revision workflows, many documents are no longer purely human-written or AI-generated, but instead result from progressive human-AI co-editing.
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.
arXiv:2603.15034v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper replicates and extends the system used in the AuTexTification shared task for authorship attribution of machine-generated texts. E...
Authorship verification (AV) assumes that an author's writing style remains sufficiently stable to distinguish it from that of other writers. In practice, however, this assumption is challenged by dis...
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).
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.
arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.
arXiv:2606. 00019v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) documentation tools are increasingly deployed to reduce clinician documentation burden, but their implications for biased language in clinical notes remain unclear.
arXiv:2607. 16989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Introduction.
arXiv:2606. 00018v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI documentation systems generate clinical note drafts that clinicians frequently revise before signing off into electronic health records, yet how these edits alter hedging language remains unclear.