arXiv:2606. 04177v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interpretable linguistic features offer a promising approach for explaining why a given text appears machine-generated, particularly for non-expert users.
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.
The study examines how generative AI has reshaped the public web in under five years, using over 5 million crawlable pages. It finds that AI-generated text has risen sharply but unevenly, with higher prevalence on English-language and .com sites, lower on .gov and .edu, and varying by a page’s centrality in the web graph. The authors employ multiple detection tools and a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate prevalence while accounting for detector errors.
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. 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:2609.35821v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Disaster social sensing converts public social-media posts into evidence for situational awareness and humanitarian needs, but generative artificial in...
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."
arXiv:2609.35821v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Disaster social sensing converts public social-media posts into evidence for situational awareness and humanitarian response, but plausible LLM-gen...
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).
In less than five years, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has dramatically reshaped the public-facing web. Using a sample of more than 5 million crawlable webpages, we demonstrate that the shar...
arXiv:2606. 10794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agentic applications increasingly route user tasks through official and third-party LLM APIs, provenance becomes an operational question: which model generated a given black-box response?
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...