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: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.
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).
arXiv:2606. 04906v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although it is generally agreed that AI-generated text poses a broad societal risk, there is no common understanding in the AI-generated text detection literature on what constitutes harmful use.
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:2606. 29437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them?