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:2608. 12630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While large language models can generate entire novels, there is little information about the level of formal variation in their output over many generations.
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.
arXiv:2608. 06589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While large language model outputs are frequently analysed as a collective super variety termed "AI language," this chapter argues that this perspective coexists with distinct, model-specific linguistic signatures akin to human idiolects.
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...
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...
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).
arXiv:2607. 29238v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: InMyStyle is a privacy first, single user system that adapts small language models to rewrite AI-edited text towards an individual user's writing style without an instruction prompt at inference.
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.
The paper argues that current AI‑text detection methods, which estimate human contribution by measuring how predictive a user’s prompt is of the final text, can be easily manipulated. By introducing SPECIFICITY PADDING—adding random IDs to the prompt—the authors show that a title‑only request can appear far more human than one containing the article’s key ideas, and that scores can swing dramatically when the evaluator’s view of the prompt is altered. Across a range of large language models, the same documents can be scored as 85 % human or 15 % human depending solely on the prompt used, revealing a fundamental limitation of likelihood‑based metrics for reliably measuring human authorship. whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that likelihood‑based scores cannot reliably establish human contribution without additional evidence of what the person added and how the text was produced."
The paper investigates why supervised AI‑text detectors, specifically a RoBERTa‑based model, can be fooled by subtle changes in language. By applying semantic, structural, and tokenizer‑level perturbations to a large dataset and controlled Mistral‑7B‑Instruct outputs, the authors show that increasing verb diversity makes machine text easier to detect and that detection scores correlate with statistical complexity, leading to a high false‑positive rate on formal human writing. They also evaluate an event‑based latent space detector, finding that paraphrasing and homoglyphs significantly alter extracted event sequences and verbs, yet the detector’s performance remains modest (AUC 0.577).
arXiv:2603. 18482v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard decoding strategies for text generation, including top-$k$, nucleus sampling, and contrastive search, select tokens based on likelihood, restricting outputs to high-probability regions.
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).