arXiv Computation and Language October 5, 2026 By Claudiu Creanga, Liviu Dinu

Ontological Instability and Statistical Amplification: The Paradox of "Humanizing" LLM-Generated Text

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper investigates why supervised AI‑text detectors, specifically a RoBERTa‑based model, can be fooled by subtle changes in language. By applying semantic, structural, and tokenizer‑level perturbations to a large dataset and controlled Mistral‑7B‑Instruct outputs, the authors show that increasing verb diversity makes machine text easier to detect and that detection scores correlate with statistical complexity, leading to a high false‑positive rate on formal human writing. They also evaluate an event‑based latent space detector, finding that paraphrasing and homoglyphs significantly alter extracted event sequences and verbs, yet the detector’s performance remains modest (AUC 0.577).

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Aug 25

Linear Probing Provides Robust and Efficient Detection of Machine-Generated Text

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...

benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

Jul 7

The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choices

arXiv:2603. 18482v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard decoding strategies for text generation, including top-$k$, nucleus sampling, and contrastive search, select tokens based on likelihood, restricting outputs to high-probability regions.

By Esteban Garces Arias, Nurzhan Sapargali, Christian Heumann, Matthias A{\ss}enmacher

llms safety

arXiv Computation and Language

Aug 27

Unveiling Spectral Mechanisms in Training-Free LLM Text Detection

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.

By Haitong Luo, Xuying Meng, Weiyao Zhang, Wenji Zou, Shengfeng Lou, Xuefeng Jiang, Chungang Lin, Yujun Zhang

llms

arXiv Computation and Language

Aug 31

AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not

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.

By Zhengyang Shan, Yukyung Lee, Sophie Hao

llms

arXiv AI

Jul 7

Telescope: Improving Zero Shot Detection of LLM Generated Content By Measuring Token Repetition Probability

arXiv:2607. 04061v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Distinguishing Large Language Model (LLM) generated text from human writing is a critical and difficult challenge.

By Christopher Nassif, Josh F. Cooper

llms benchmarks safety

arXiv AI

Aug 3

ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation

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

llms benchmarks