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

With the rise of generative language models, machine-generated text detection has become a critical challenge. A wide variety of models is available, but inconsistent datasets, evaluation metrics, and assessment strategies obscure comparisons of model effectiveness. To address this, we evaluate 15 different detection models from six distinct systems, as well as seven trained models, across seven English-language textual test sets and three creative human-written datasets. We provide an empirical analysis of model performance, the influence of training and evaluation data, and the impact of key metrics. We find that no single system excels in all areas and nearly all are effective for certain tasks, and the representation of model performance is critically linked to dataset and metric choices. We find high variance in model ranks based on datasets and metrics, and overall poor performance on novel human-written texts in high-risk domains. Across datasets and metrics, we find that methodological choices that are often assumed or overlooked are essential for clearly and accurately reflecting model performance.

The ability to reliably distinguish human-written text from that generated by large language models is of profound societal importance. The dominant approach to this problem exploits the likelihood hypothesis: that machine-generated text should appear more probable to a detector language model than human-written text. However, we demonstrate that the token-level signal distinguishing human and machine text is non-uniform across the hidden space of the detector model, and naively averaging likelihood-based token scores across regions with fundamentally different statistical structure, as most detectors do, causes a form of Simpson's paradox: a strong local signal is destroyed by inappropriate aggregation. To correct for this, we introduce a learned local calibration step grounded in Bayesian decision theory. Rather than aggregating raw token scores, we first learn lightweight predictors of the score distributions conditioned on position in hidden space, and aggregate calibrated log-likelihood ratios instead. This single intervention dramatically and consistently improves detection performance across all baseline detectors and all datasets we consider. For example, our calibrated variant of Fast-DetectGPT improves AUROC from $0.63$ to $0.85$ on GPT-5.4 text, and a locally-calibrated DMAP detector we introduce achieves state-of-the-art performance across the board. That said, our central contribution is not a new detector, but a precise diagnosis of a significant cause of under-performance of existing detectors and a principled, modular remedy compatible with any token-averaging pipeline. This will serve as a foundation for the community to build upon, with natural avenues including richer distributional models, improved calibration strategies, and principled ensembling with hidden-space geometry signals via the full Bayes-optimal decision rule.

Distinguishing Large Language Model (LLM) generated text from human writing is a critical and difficult challenge. While LLMs are trained to write like humans, we hypothesize that this training leaves an indelible mark. LLMs develop a particularly strong aversion to token repetition very early in training. This bias persists as a ''Vestigial Heuristic'' (a developmental artifact) that is activated in LLM-generated text, separating LLM from human writing. To probe this phenomenon, we introduce Telescope Perplexity, a metric that evaluates the token repetition of the model, $P(s_i | s_{1:i})$ . Our empirical investigation reveals that the Telescope Perplexity signature emerges early in pre-training, and Telescope Perplexity empirically enables highly effective zero-shot LLM detection. We show state-of-the-art or competitive performance across diverse datasets (including modern evaluation sets we introduce), reference models, and perturbation schemes with greater efficiency than other methods.