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.
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:2607. 29539v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs).
Sentence-level AI-generated text detection (S-AGTD) for hybrid documents, where humans and LLMs co-author one text, faces two gaps: existing methods classify each sentence in isolation, discarding inter-sentence dependencies, and existing benchmarks omit the newest generation of generators. We construct MOSAIC, a benchmark of 16,000 hybrid documents over PubMed and XSum, generated by DeepSeek-V3.
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.
arXiv:2605. 00924v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-generated content (AIGC) detectors are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as academic integrity screening, yet their reliability rests on a fundamental paradox: as language models are trained on human-written corpora, the statistical boundary between AI and human writing will inevitably dissolve as models improve.
arXiv:2608. 11256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct.
arXiv:2607. 03680v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent AI-generated text detection work often introduces a new benchmark together with a specialized detector tailored to it.
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:2606. 07313v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Detecting machine-generated text is especially difficult under distribution shift, such as transfer across domains, source models, and editing attacks.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
arXiv:2604. 25860v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine-generated text (MGT) detection requires identifying structurally invariant signals across generation models, rather than relying on model-specific fingerprints.