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.
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.
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. 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:2609.15369v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Word-level detectors identify unedited AI-generated text almost perfectly, but the literature documents their brittleness under rewording, and a word-l...
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is built from a diverse set of modern proprietary and open‑source LLMs to address gaps in existing resources, such as outdated models, limited language coverage, and lack of mixed human‑AI authorship data.
arXiv:2609.14352v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI-generated image detection has attracted increasing attention, but existing evaluations mainly focus on natural images, leaving AI-generated document...
We’re launching a classifier trained to distinguish between AI-written and human-written text.
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.
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.
arXiv:2505. 14608v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite considerable progress in the development of machine-text detectors, the ease with which machine-text can be manipulated to evade detection has led to suggestions that the problem is inherently intractable.
The paper introduces "question archaeology," an evaluation task that asks models to infer the single, authentic question that motivated a text. It presents a new dataset of commissioned texts paired with their original research questions and distractors, and evaluates both proprietary and open‑source LLMs. Results show newer models outperform older ones, with BERT-based models lagging, and current LLMs even surpassing human performance on this task.
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...