TAB-AUDIT: Detecting AI-Fabricated Scientific Tables via Multi-View Likelihood Mismatch

Modern multimodal generators can now produce scientific figures at near-publishable quality, creating a new challenge for visual forensics and research integrity. Unlike conventional AI-generated natural images, scientific figures are structured, text-dense, and tightly aligned with scholarly semantics, making them a distinct and difficult detection target. However, existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks and methods are almost entirely developed for open-domain imagery, leaving this setting largely unexplored. We present the first benchmark for AI-generated scientific figure detection. To construct it, we develop an agent-based data pipeline that retrieves licensed source papers, performs multimodal understanding of paper text and figures, builds structured prompts, synthesizes candidate figures, and filters them through a review-driven refinement loop. The resulting benchmark covers multiple figure categories, multiple generation sources and aligned real--synthetic pairs. We benchmark representative detectors under zero-shot, cross-generator, and degraded-image settings. Results show that current methods fail dramatically in zero-shot transfer, exhibit strong generator-specific overfitting, and remain fragile under common post-processing corruptions. These findings reveal a substantial gap between existing AIGI detection capabilities and the emerging distribution of high-quality scientific figures. We hope this benchmark can serve as a foundation for future research on robust and generalizable scientific-figure forensics. The dataset is available at https://github.com/Joyce-yoyo/SciFigDetect.

As large language models become increasingly capable of generating, and assisting with, scientific writing, there is a need for greater transparency and disclosure around the use of AI in research. Consequently, a veritable subfield of research and a number of commercial services aim to flag AI-generated content automatically. However, existing detectors which rely only on text extracted from PDFs fail to benefit from the rich visual information contained in the formatting of math-heavy scientific content. To study this, we select human-written proof and prose passages from pre-2022 arXiv LaTeX sources and re-generate them using 15 modern LLMs within the context of the same paper. This leaves us with coupled human and AI outputs in three different representations: the LaTeX source, a rendered image of the PDF, and the text extracted from the PDF. We find that the accuracy of the state-of-the-art Pangram 4 drops significantly as the mathematical content in a passage increases, especially when evaluated on text as opposed to LaTeX. However, this is not an inherent limitation of detecting AI-generated math: finetuning Qwen-3.5-27B based detectors on this domain recovers the gap, with LaTeX inputs performing significantly better than text since they preserve more formatting information. Since LaTeX sources are rarely available in practice, we also train SnapJudge: an image-based detector operating on screenshots of both prose and proofs from papers. At 0.1% false positive rate, SnapJudge achieves a detection rate of 92% on proofs and 93% on prose generated by frontier models, substantially outperforming both Pangram 4 and our text-based detector. We release our data, models and code at https://nlplab.cs.duke.edu/snapjudge.

AI-generated content, often called AI slop, is increasingly common everywhere, particularly in academia. Slop in AI-generated scientific papers, however, has more complex patterns that cannot be easily detected by existing token-based AI detectors. Each part of such a paper looks plausible while the scientific reasoning that connects the parts breaks down, which can mislead how readers assess the work. We benchmark these failures as scientific slop through six measures across Structure, Argument, and Artifacts. We construct SciSlopBench with 390 AI-generated papers, mostly in computer science but spanning the life, social, and natural sciences, each paired with a human-written paper matched by research problem and contribution type. Our measures identify the AI paper in each pair with 85.9% accuracy, compared with 68.7% for Binoculars. Higher scientific slop accompanies lower ICLR ratings and distinguishes rejected from accepted papers above chance in every year from 2017 to 2025. Reducing these patterns, however, is not as simple as directly optimizing the measures. We therefore propose SciSlopHarness, a harness-level framework that guides a fixed LLM to revise slop only where the experiment records support the change. While standard revisions leave residual slop and direct slop-aware prompting triggers reward hacking, SciSlopHarness reduces the remaining AI-human gap by 63% over the strongest revision baseline without requiring human reference targets. Overall, we demonstrate that AI-generated scientific papers leave fundamental traces in their global reasoning, and that responsible mitigation demands strict evidentiary grounding rather than mere prose refinement.