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.
By Yassir El Attar, Esra D\"onmez, Maximilian Maurer, Agnieszka Falenska
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.
By Nils Dycke, Marina Sakharova, Nico Daheim, Iryna Gurevych
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
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.
By Karolina Rudnicka, Thomas Stephan Juzek
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
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?
By Jiaxu Liu, Sunnan Mu, Dong Huang, Liuyin Wang, Jing Shao, Jie Zhang
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...
By Adam Skurla, Dominik Macko, Jakub Simko
arXiv:2606. 02184v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: These names do not exist.
By Micha{\l} Brzozowski, Neo Christopher Chung
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. 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.
By Sondos Mahmoud Bsharat, Jiacheng Liu, Xiaohan Zhao, Tianjun Yao, Xinyi Shang, Yi Tang, Jiacheng Cui, Ahmed Elhagry, Salwa K. Al Khatib, Hao Li, Salman Khan, Zhiqiang Shen
These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived.
NOTAI.AI is an explainable AI-generated text detection system that goes beyond a simple binary label by showing which signals influenced its prediction. It combines sentence-level conditional probability curvature, a neural detector score, and interpretable stylometric and readability features in an XGBoost meta-classifier, and explains predictions using TreeSHAP feature contributions that can be turned into concise natural-language explanations. Evaluated on a balanced subset of RAID, the full model achieves 0.9685 F1 and receives 94.5–98.6% approval from model judges for the faithfulness of its explanations.
By Oleksandr Marchenko Breneur, Adelaide Danilov, Aria Nourbakhsh, Salima Lamsiyah