Human vs. Machine Deception: Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Fake News Using Ensemble Learning

The increasing use of large language models has raised concerns about the spread of AI-generated fake news, particularly under varying prompting strategies. Most existing detection models are trained and evaluated under a single generation setting, leaving their ability to generalize across unseen prompts unclear. In this study, we investigate cross-prompt generalization in fake news detection using three datasets of AI-generated articles produced under distinct prompts, combined with real news articles. We extract interpretable linguistic features capturing lexical diversity, readability, and emotion-based characteristics and evaluate a random forest classifier under a cross-prompt framework, where models trained on one prompt are tested on another. Across all six train-test combinations, performance remains consistently high, with AUC values ranging from 0.988 to 1.000. Analysis of feature distributions shows that AI-generated text exhibits increased lexical diversity, reduced readability, and substantially lower emotional intensity compared to the overall dataset, with variations across prompts. Despite these distributional shifts, the classifier maintains strong performance, indicating that these features capture stable properties of AI-generated text that generalize across prompting strategies. These findings suggest that feature-based approaches can provide robust detection of AI-generated fake news under prompt variability.

The growing capability of large language models to produce fluent, contextually coherent text has created mounting pressure on the systems and institutions responsible for ensuring the authenticity of digital content. Advanced generative models such as GPT-4, Claude 3.5, and Llama can produce highly coherent and human-like text, making it increasingly difficult to differentiate between human-written and AI-generated content. While these models have transformative applications, their misuse has raised concerns about misinformation, biased narratives, and security threats. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art AI-generated text detection techniques and evaluates their effectiveness through the Counter Turing Test (CT2) shared tasks. Task A (Binary Classification) required participants to distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text, while Task B (Model Attribution) focused on identifying the specific language model responsible for generating a given text. The results demonstrated high performance in binary classification, with the top system achieving an F1 score of 1.0000, but significantly lower scores in model attribution, where the best system achieved 0.9531, highlighting the increased complexity of this task. The top-performing teams leveraged fine-tuned transformer models, ensemble learning, and hybrid detection approaches, with DeBERTa-based and BART-based methods demonstrating strong results. However, the lower scores in Task B underscore the challenges of distinguishing outputs from different LLMs, necessitating further research into adversarial robustness, feature extraction, and cross-domain generalization.

Interpretable linguistic features offer a promising approach for explaining why a given text appears machine-generated, particularly for non-expert users. However, existing findings on which features reliably indicate LLM-generated text remain fragmented across feature sets, models, and text domains. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical study assessing the robustness of linguistic signals for characterizing AI-generated text. Our analysis covers 284 interpretable linguistic features across outputs from 27 LLMs and ten text domains under cross-model and cross-domain generalization settings. We show that classifiers based solely on linguistic features can reliably distinguish AI-generated from human-written text. However, many previously proposed indicators prove strongly context-dependent, with the exception of measures of lexical richness, which remain robust signals across model families and text domains. These results demonstrate which linguistic signals generalize across contexts and provide a foundation for more reliable, interpretable analyses of AI-generated language.