arXiv AI By Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean

Value Over Language Model: Detecting Original Contribution in Writing

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.

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 AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education

The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.

By Lukas Gehring, Benjamin Paa{\ss}en
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 2

Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.

By Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan, Adrian de Wynter, Sujay Kumar Jauhar
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 27

Unfolding Scientific Papers into Multi-Turn Generation Trajectories for Continued Pre-Training

arXiv:2608. 25826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched.

By Qiankai Xu, Qiguang Chen, Zixin Su, Wenhao Huang, Yue Gao, Jiaheng Liu, Ge Zhang
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.

By Martin Docekal, Martin Fajcik, Pavel Smrz