arXiv:2508. 01656v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) have reached human-like fluency and coherence, distinguishing machine-generated text (MGT) from human-written content becomes increasingly difficult.
arXiv:2606. 00016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Detecting AI-generated text is becoming increasingly challenging as modern language models approach human-level fluency and can evade detectors that rely on surface statistics or likelihood-based signals.
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: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. 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:2607. 21458v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rise of human-AI collaborative writing has created a growing need for fine-grained detection methods that support localizing likely LLM-generated content in mixed-authorship documents.
The rise of human-AI collaborative writing has created a growing need for fine-grained detection methods that support localizing likely LLM-generated content in mixed-authorship documents. Existing methods for detecting LLM-generated text mainly focus on document-level classification and cannot identify which parts of the text are generated by LLMs.
LLMTrace is a new large‑scale bilingual (English and Russian) corpus designed to improve AI‑written text detection. It contains character‑level annotations that enable precise localization of AI‑generated segments, supporting both full‑text binary classification and interval detection tasks. The dataset is built from a diverse set of modern proprietary and open‑source LLMs to address gaps in existing resources, such as outdated models, limited language coverage, and lack of mixed human‑AI authorship data.
MultiGhostBench is a multilingual benchmark for authorship attribution of long-form text generated by large language models. It contains 928 books produced by five recent LLMs in six languages and three scripts, each averaging about 59,000 words, and is designed to test attribution methods under domain, author, and language shifts. Experiments show that no single attribution method dominates across all settings, with performance generally dropping under distribution shifts, and that transformer-based detectors retain generator information across languages while statistical and fingerprint-based detectors are more language‑dependent.
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.
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...
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.