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:2606. 04928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance.
By Fr\'ed\'eric Berdoz, Luca A. Lanzend\"orfer, Kaan Bayraktar, Roger Wattenhofer
arXiv:2510.13302v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Computational stylometry studies writing style through quantitative textual patterns, enabling applications such as authorship attribution, i...
By Pablo Miralles-Gonz\'alez, Javier Huertas-Tato, Alejandro Mart\'in, David Camacho
arXiv:2609.38831v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Model-attribution classifiers can often identify which language model produced a text, making model-specific writing patterns a signal of provenance. A...
By Haohan Yuan, Simin Chen, Xi Niu, Hanqing Guo, Depeng Xu, Haopeng Zhang
The paper demonstrates that fine‑tuning large language models on a single author’s works can trigger the models to reproduce large verbatim excerpts from copyrighted books, even when prompted only with semantic descriptions. Experiments on GPT‑4o, Gemini‑2.5‑Pro, and DeepSeek‑V3.1 show up to 85‑90% recall of held‑out books, with spans exceeding 460 words, and this effect generalizes across authors and model providers. The findings suggest that fine‑tuning reactivates latent memorization from pre‑training, revealing a widespread vulnerability in industry models.
By Xinyue Liu, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Jane C. Ginsburg, Tuhin Chakrabarty
arXiv:2608. 03859v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) pose challenges to academic integrity and peer review.
By Peijia Guo, Wenxuan Xie, ZiGuang Li, Ming Li
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.
By Lucio La Cava, Dominik Macko, R\'obert M\'oro, Ivan Srba, Andrea Tagarelli
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution under different evidence conditions. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to balance reliability and responsiveness. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs across various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but increases abstention, while adversarial metadata can push hallucination rates above 85%. Human evaluation confirms a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.
By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
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.
By Matteo Greco, Anudeex Shetty, Andrea Tagarelli, Jey Han Lau
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, while transformer‑based detectors retain generator information across languages but vary in transfer effectiveness, and statistical/fingerprint detectors are more language‑dependent.
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