Organizations: Cohere for AI Community · Vantager · IIT Roorkee · University of Maryland · Perplexity · University of South Florida · University of Houston · IISc Bangalore · Amazon · Stanford University
An ideal detection system for machine generated content is supposed to work well on any generator as many more advanced LLMs come into existence day by day. Existing systems often struggle with accurately identifying AI-generated content over shorter texts. Further, not all texts might be entirely authored by a human or LLM, hence we focused more over partial cases i.e human-LLM co-authored texts. Our paper introduces a set of models built for the task of token classification which are trained on an extensive collection of human-machine co-authored texts, which performed well over texts of unseen domains, unseen generators, texts by non-native speakers and those with adversarial inputs. We also introduce a new dataset of over 2.4M such texts mostly co-authored by several popular proprietary LLMs over 23 languages. We also present findings of our models' performance over each texts of each domain and generator. Additional findings include comparison of performance against each adversarial method, length of input texts and characteristics of generated texts compared to the original human authored texts.
Figures & tables
Source
Dataset/Benchmark
Samples
Languages
Generators
( Lee et al., 2022 )
CoAuthor
1,445
1
1
( Zhang et al., 2024 )
MixSet
3,600
1
12
( Dugan et al., 2022 )
RoFT
21,646
1
5
( Macko et al., 2024b )
MultiTude
4,070
11
8
Table 1: Comparison with other Human-LLM co-authored datasets & benchmarks
Figure 1: Dataset distribution per each generator and language in our dataset
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
97.16
90.69
97.55
96.44
Chinese*
93.13
76.28
91.40
86.58
Czech
96.23
79.63
93.84
94.98
Dutch
96.83
77.60
94.13
95.31
Table 2: Word-Level Accuracy (.2f) of the models on the test dataset for each case
Metrics →
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
Initial Model
86.51
91.61
87.46
89.49
Final Model
86.00
87.16
92.25
89.63
Table 3: Word level Metrics over Mgtd-bench (.2f) through our models (zero-shot, unseen domains, unseen generators)
Metrics →
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
Arabic
95.9
96.1
94.5
95.2
English
99.1
98.7
99.3
99.0
Arabic-Best
96.1
96.1
95.0
95.5
English-Best
99.3
99.0
99.2
99.1
Table 4: Overall Metrics over ETS essays (.1f) through our detectors (zero-shot, unseen generators, unseen domain) VS best submissions (fine-tuned on same generators and domain)
System
Source
M
E
R
Avg
GLTR
( Gehrmann et al., 2019a )
0.706
0.943
0.773
0.807
Binoculars
( Hans et al., 2024 )
0.822
0.995
0.613
0.778
RADAR
( Gu et al., 2025 )
0.768
0.939
0.716
0.794
Table 5: Comparisons with other systems on the same benchmarks: MGTD-Bench ( M ), Academic-Essays ( E ), and Raid-Bench ( R ) through F1 Scores, and the average scores from the 3 benchmarks ( AVG ). The results cover a randomly sampled subset of each benchmark spanning over 13k samples, including those with adversarial methods ( R ) and non-native speakers ( E ). Randomly sampled subsets were used with equal distribution of all generators, domains, and adversarial methods distribution in the subset for each benchmark.
Figure 2: F1 scores VS text sampling method used : Sampling strategy did not effect detection capability
Figure 3: F1 scores VS the generator’s texts : instruct/chat variants were harder to detect than the corresponding base models.
Figure 4: F1 scores VS each domain’s texts : news i.e the only training data domain was easier to detect.
Figure 5: F1 scores VS adversarial method used in the input texts : homo-glyphs are the only real issue, and paraphrases to a small extent, while the rest can be handled through pre-processing.
Language
Length of
Length of
Original part
generated part
Arabic
17
13
Czech
11
8
Dutch
12
10
Table 6: Median length (words) of original & newly generated parts of the sentences - Language wise : Models tend to finish off current sentence after authorship switch quickly before continuing with the rest of the text.
Generator
Length of
Length of
original part
generated part
Amazon-Nova-Pro
14
10
Amazon-Nova-Lite
12
10
Aya-23-35B
11
10
Table 7: Median length (words) of original & newly generated parts of the sentences : Generator wise
Figure 6: Accuracy VS length of input texts (sentence count)
Generator
Accuracy
Amazon-Nova-Pro
94.90
Amazon-Nova-Lite
95.26
Aya-23-35B
91.75
Claude-3.5-Haiku
96.07
Table 8: Word level accuracy (.2f) of our models over our dataset (English)
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
continue this text in Language directly :
complete this text in Language , respond directly :
Appendix
Table 9: Prompts used in dataset creation : Partial cases
Rewrite this in Language a different way :
Generate an alternative version of this in Language :
Generate a later update to this in Language :
Generate a previous version of this in Language ;
Appendix
Table 10: Prompts used in dataset creation : Rewritten cases
Hyperparameter
Value
Seed (Training)
1024
Seed (Shuffling)
1024
Number of Epochs
5
Per Device Batch Size (Train)
12
Appendix
Table 11: Training Hyper-parameters used
Language ↓
Mean length of
Mean length of
Median length of
Median length of
old text portion
new text portion
Old text portion
New text portion
Arabic
18.73
16.25
17
13
Czech
12.02
9.52
11
8
Dutch
13.73
13.39
12
10
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of replaced and generated text portion lengths (word count) : Language wise
Generator ↓
Mean length of
Mean length of
Median length of
Median length of
old text portion
new text portion
Old text portion
New text portion
Amazon-Nova-Pro
16.02
13.27
12
10
Amazon-Nova-Lite
18.12
12.87
14
10
Aya-23-35B
13.70
12.87
11
10
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of replaced and generated text portion lengths (word count) : Generator wise
Language ↓
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1-score
Arabic
96.44
92.50
97.17
94.78
Chinese*
86.58
87.03
86.46
86.75
Czech
94.98
94.57
97.96
96.23
Dutch
95.31
93.34
97.97
95.60
Appendix
Table 14: Word-level Metrics of our models over each language : our test set
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
97.56
88.10
98.09
97.17
Chinese*
93.70
75.35
91.60
87.00
Czech
96.63
80.10
94.36
95.20
Dutch
95.21
78.00
92.10
95.23
Appendix
Table 15: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : amazon-nova-pro
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
96.56
90.93
95.62
95.88
Chinese*
93.20
76.99
93.57
87.77
Czech
97.81
79.40
94.58
96.43
Dutch
97.07
78.10
92.85
95.19
Appendix
Table 16: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : amazon-nova-lite
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
95.14
92.22
97.76
96.05
Chinese*
85.65
75.66
89.10
82.40
Czech
89.75
79.02
87.94
89.24
Dutch
92.45
79.97
92.99
93.12
Appendix
Table 17: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Aya-23
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
98.82
91.63
95.75
97.18
Chinese*
86.51
75.93
86.18
87.75
Czech
99.80
80.78
91.56
97.55
Dutch
99.49
77.57
86.16
96.41
Appendix
Table 18: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Claude-3.5-Haiku
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
98.63
91.82
100.00
96.58
Chinese*
92.64
78.36
95.14
88.43
Czech
99.30
77.22
99.88
97.62
Dutch
99.30
77.53
99.52
97.30
Appendix
Table 19: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Claude-3.5-Sonnet
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
87.12
85.34
86
82
Chinese*
88.90
86.45
89
84
English
92.45
90.12
91
88
French
89.78
87.21
90
85
Appendix
Table 20: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Command-R-Plus
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
95.74
91.26
96.31
95.01
Chinese*
92.63
77.87
92.51
86.36
Czech
93.30
80.96
91.67
91.87
Dutch
94.14
74.85
90.84
92.58
Appendix
Table 21: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : GPT-4o
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
99.10
90.46
97.08
97.92
Chinese*
95.08
76.01
86.18
87.30
Czech
98.84
80.76
86.30
97.05
Dutch
98.80
77.47
89.03
97.12
Appendix
Table 22: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : GPT-o1
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
93.90
88.40
98.59
94.86
Chinese*
89.29
75.98
94.92
85.09
Czech
91.43
78.82
97.15
92.04
Dutch
95.08
78.10
91.91
94.86
Appendix
Table 23: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Gemini-1.5-Pro
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
98.55
89.55
98.00
95.88
Chinese*
89.94
75.81
94.03
87.75
Czech
98.45
80.42
99.78
96.67
Dutch
98.22
78.00
99.39
95.86
Appendix
Table 24: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Gemini-1.5-Flash
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
Arabic
96.53
92.00
99.40
95.68
Chinese*
95.05
76.30
97.63
88.07
Czech
96.99
78.78
94.73
94.98
Dutch
94.46
78.10
91.01
94.46
Appendix
Table 25: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Mistral-Large-2411
Language ↓
Partial cases
Unchanged cases
Rewritten cases
Overall
English
97.10
91.08
99.71
96.64
French
95.53
72.58
99.49
93.94
German
94.98
77.21
99.50
94.29
Portuguese
92.66
89.06
98.17
94.03
Appendix
Table 26: Case wise accuracies over all languages for each generator : Perplexity-Sonar-Large
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. This paper introduces a new method to address this urgent need. Our method operates at the token level, the natural unit of modern language models, and builds on existing token-level detection scores. The key idea is to smooth adjacent token scores to reduce their variability, while using an adaptive Lepski-type rule to select the bandwidth according to the local authorship structure. Our method is simple to implement and does not require token-level labeled data for training. Theoretically, we characterize this trade-off and show that the proposed method achieves favorable mean square error performance in estimating the underlying signal. Empirically, we demonstrate strong performance of our method against a wide range of baselines in both synthetic datasets and a realistic dataset. We deploy a publicly accessible website that implements the methods as well.
Yangjun Lu, Hongyi Zhou, Fabian Spill +3
School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK · School of Statistics and Data Science, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China · Department of Statistics, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
As large language models (LLMs) generate text that increasingly resembles human writing, the subtle cues that distinguish AI-generated content from human-written content become increasingly challenging to capture. Reliance on generator-specific artifacts is inherently unstable, since new models emerge rapidly and reduce the robustness of such shortcuts. This generalizes unseen generators as a central and challenging problem for AI-text detection. To tackle this challenge, we propose a progressively structured framework that disentangles AI-detection semantics from generator-aware artifacts. This is achieved through a compact latent encoding that encourages semantic minimality, followed by perturbation-based regularization to reduce residual entanglement, and finally a discriminative adaptation stage that aligns representations with task objectives. Experiments on MAGE benchmark, covering 20 representative LLMs across 7 categories, demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art methods, achieving up to 24.2% accuracy gain and 26.2% F1 improvement. Notably, performance continues to improve as the diversity of training generators increases, confirming strong scalability and generalization in open-set scenarios. Our source code will be publicly available at https://github.com/PuXiao06/DRGD.
Xiao Pu, Zepeng Cheng, Lin Yuan +2
Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China
The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for robust and generalizable detectors of machine-generated text. Existing benchmarks typically evaluate a single detector on a single dataset under ideal conditions, leaving open questions about cross-domain transfer, cross-LLM generalization, and adversarial robustness. We present a comprehensive benchmark evaluating diverse detection approaches across two corpora: HC3 (23,363 human-ChatGPT pairs) and ELI5 (15,000 human-Mistral-7B pairs). Methods include classical classifiers, fine-tuned transformer encoders (BERT, RoBERTa, ELECTRA, DistilBERT, DeBERTa-v3), a CNN, an XGBoost stylometric model, perplexity-based detectors, and LLM-as-detector prompting. Results show that transformer models achieve near-perfect in-distribution performance but degrade under domain shift. The XGBoost stylometric model matches performance while remaining interpretable. LLM-based detectors underperform and are affected by generator-detector identity bias. Perplexity-based methods exhibit polarity inversion, with modern LLM outputs showing lower perplexity than human text, but remain effective when corrected. No method generalizes robustly across domains and LLM sources.
Madhav S. Baidya, S. S. Baidya, Chirag Chawla
Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India · Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India