arXiv:2606. 06315v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in interpretability suggest that large language models (LLMs) implicitly encode signals in their generated text that enable self-recognition of their outputs.
arXiv:2605.12890v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made machine-generated text increasingly difficult to distinguish from human-writte...
arXiv:2602. 10352v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Self-interpretation methods prompt language models to describe their own internal states, but remain unreliable due to hyperparameter sensitivity.
arXiv:2607. 04061v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Distinguishing Large Language Model (LLM) generated text from human writing is a critical and difficult challenge.
The paper investigates training‑free detection of machine‑generated text using spectral analysis. It shows that spectral energy correlates with variance in token probability trajectories and that human writing produces characteristic fluctuations, termed "generative vitality." The authors find that spectral signals are strongest for long, continuous, constrained generations, while shorter or mixed texts require additional confidence‑based metrics.
arXiv:2608.29903v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made AI-generated text detection increasingly critical. Existing zero-shot detectors assume...
arXiv:2608. 05741v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent and convincing text at scale, creating growing risks for misinformation dissemination, educational misuse, and platform governance.
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...
The paper proposes a hidden‑state probing method for detecting hallucinations at the span level in large language model outputs, moving beyond token‑wise binary classification. By examining layer‑wise activation patterns, the approach identifies the exact onset and continuation tokens of hallucinations, achieving higher precision‑recall AUC than random baselines despite class imbalance. Additionally, the authors introduce a cross‑model detection framework where one model observes another’s internal representations, showing that an external observer can match or surpass the generator’s own self‑detection of hallucination onsets, even when the observer is smaller.
The paper introduces a method for identifying the dominant knowledge source behind large language model (LLM) outputs, distinguishing between faithfulness violations (misuse of provided context) and factuality violations (errors in internal knowledge). A simple linear probe trained on hidden representations can reliably classify this source, and the authors present AttriWiki, a self‑supervised pipeline that generates labeled training data by prompting models to recall withheld entities or read them from context. Probes trained on AttriWiki achieve high Macro‑F1 scores across several models and datasets, generalize zero‑shot to a benchmark, and show that attribution mismatches can increase error rates by up to 70%. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that knowing the source of an LLM’s answer is crucial for effective mitigation of hallucinations, as attribution mismatches significantly raise error rates."
The paper introduces MOSAIC, a large adversarial benchmark for detecting AI-generated text, and presents NeuroStat, a new framework that combines token‑level probabilistic logits with deep semantic hidden states from a single language model. NeuroStat fuses these signals via Macro‑State Residual Modulation and uses orthogonal and contrastive losses to learn complementary representations. Experiments show that NeuroStat outperforms existing methods on MOSAIC, achieving superior robustness against adversarial attacks.
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.
arXiv:2506. 14003v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Machine unlearning (MU) for large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM unlearning, seeks to remove specific undesirable data or knowledge from a trained model, while maintaining its performance on standard tasks.