AI-generated text has become common in academic and professional writing, prompting research into detection methods. Less studied is the reverse: systematically rewriting AI-generated prose to read as genuinely human-authored. We build a parallel corpus of 25,140 paired AI-input and human-reference text chunks, identify 11 measurable stylistic markers separating the two registers, and fine-tune three models: BART-base, BART-large, and Mistral-7B-Instruct with QLoRA. BART-large achieves the highest reference similarity -- BERTScore F1 of 0.924, ROUGE-L of 0.566, and chrF++ of 55.92 -- with 17x fewer parameters than Mistral-7B. We show that Mistral-7B's higher marker shift score reflects overshoot rather than accuracy, and argue that shift accuracy is a meaningful blind spot in current style transfer evaluation.
Figures & tables
Metric
Human
AI
Change
Signal
Avg word count
50.77
41.84
−17.5%
Moderate
Avg sentence count
3.78
2.41
−36.2%
Moderate
Avg word length (chars)
5.09
5.84
+14.7%
Strong
Lexical diversity
0.783
0.853
+8.9%
Moderate
Contractions per chunk
0.17
0.00
−100%
Very Strong
Question marks
0.084
0.035
−58.3%
Strong
Table 1: Chunk-level linguistic marker comparison between human-authored and AI-generated text (test subset, n=1,390 ).
Setting
BART-base
BART-large
Mistral-7B
Parameters
139M (full FT)
406M (full FT)
7B (LoRA only)
Adapter
None
None
QLoRA NF4, r =16, α =32
Epochs / Steps
1 epoch (smoke)
5 epochs
500 steps
Learning rate
5×10−5 (linear)
5×10−5 (cosine)
2×10−4 (cosine)
Batch size (eff.)
16
16
8
Precision
bf16
bf16
fp16 + 4-bit base
Table 2: Training configuration summary.
Model
Params
BERTScore F1
ROUGE-L
chrF++
PPL
Mean Shift
BART-base
139M
0.9088
0.4448
46.41
26.69
0.6513
BART-large
406M
0.9240
0.5657
55.92
27.15
0.8289
Mistral-7B
7B
0.8980
0.4642
55.68
0 9.03
1.2788
Human ref
—
—
—
—
23.69
—
Table 3: Quantitative evaluation results on the 1,390-example test set. Best values per metric in bold. PPL = GPT-2 perplexity; Shift = mean linguistic marker shift.
Figure 1: Reference-based metrics (BERTScore F1, ROUGE-L, chrF++) for BART-base, BART-large, and Mistral-7B on the 1,390-example test set.
Marker
AI Input
BART-base
BART-large
Mistral-7B
Human Ref
Note
Word count
41.8
48.9
46.3
77.9
50.8
△
Sentence count
2.41
3.53
3.41
5.84
3.78
△
Avg word length
5.84
5.52
5.09
5.16
5.09
Lexical diversity
0.853
0.766
0.783
0.510
0.783
△
Contractions
0.00
0.095
0.097
0.383
0.166
△
Question marks
0.035
0.047
0.048
0.112
0.084
Table 4: Per-marker averages across AI input, model outputs, and human reference. Key: △ = Mistral-7B overshoots the human target (shift >1 ). (WD) = wrong direction: Mistral-7B shift <0 , meaning the output moves away from the human mean rather than toward it.
Marker
BART-base
BART-large
Mistral-7B
Note
Word count
0.785
0.496
2.000
Mistral overshoots
Sentence count
0.823
0.730
2.000
Mistral overshoots
Avg word length
0.438
1.000
0.908
BART-large exact
Lexical diversity
1.245
1.004
2.000
Mistral overshoots
Contractions
0.571
0.584
2.000
Mistral overshoots
Question marks
0.246
0.275
1.565
Table 5: Directional marker shift scores. Values >1 indicate overshoot; values <0 indicate movement in the wrong direction.
Figure 2: Per-marker directional shift scores for all three models. Values above 1.0 indicate overshoot beyond the human target; values below 0 indicate movement in the wrong direction.
Figure 3: GPT-2 perplexity for model outputs and the human reference baseline (23.69). Lower is not always better: Mistral-7B’s score of 9.03 reflects over-smooth generation rather than human-like naturalness.
Text style transfer (TST) is naturally a supervised task - rewrite a sentence in a target style while preserving its meaning - yet the parallel corpora that supervision requires exist for only a handful of style domains. A common workaround is to normalize an input into a style-agnostic intermediate and then stylize it into the target style, but the normalizer is typically a lightweight, task-specific paraphraser applied only at test time, feeding a correspondingly small stylizer. We observe that a style-stripping normalizer already exists at scale: neural MT systems trained on hundreds of millions of general-domain sentence pairs preserve content while regressing toward generic phrasing, so roundtrip translation through a pivot language strips stylistic signal without any task-specific training. This turns normalization from an inference-time patch into a data-generation tool. Roundtrip-translating a monolingual in-style corpus yields a pseudo-parallel corpus on which we LoRA-finetune an instruction-tuned LLM as the stylizer (RT-SFT); applying the same normalizer to test queries keeps that stylizer in-distribution. We show that across four style domains, RT-SFT outperforms state-of-the-art methods, such as few-shot in-context learning, by considerable margins. We also report on effective retrieval augmentation methods for expert style domains with strict terminology and naming conventions.
Aligned language models often exhibit a recognizable AI-like style, yet its connection to post-training and internal representations remains poorly understood. In this work, we study whether post-training introduces or amplifies AI-like stylistic regularities and whether these regularities have a localized internal signature. To this end, we compare human text, base-model generations, and aligned-model generations under matched human-source prefixes. Aligned generations show lower human-corpus affinity and higher AI-detection rates than base generations, suggesting that post-training shifts generated text away from human-corpus style and toward detector-visible AI-like text. We then introduce PASTA (Post-training Alignment Signature Targeted Ablation), a training-free method that estimates a post-training alignment signature from aligned-base residual contrasts and ablates the corresponding direction during decoding. Across 11 aligned models and 6 AI detectors, PASTA lowers the detection rate for most aligned models; this effect transfers well across detectors and is not reproduced by random directions. Qualitative analysis suggests that PASTA generations remain relevant and coherent while exhibiting greater stylistic variation. Together, these results show that AI-like stylistic effects of post-training can be measured, localized, and causally tested through activation ablation.
Aniket Anand, Janvijay Singh, Zhewei Sun +2
University of Chicago · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
Supervised AI-text detectors report high benchmark accuracy, but it is not clear what their decisions are based on. We analyze a RoBERTa-based detector under semantic, structural, and tokenizer-level perturbations, using the M4 dataset (N = 10,000) and controlled generations (N = 300). When Mistral-7B-Instruct was asked to make machine text sound more human, Verb Diversity rose from 0.77 to 0.92 and the outputs became easier to detect. Detection scores appear to track statistical complexity, which also leads to a 76.3% false-positive rate on formal human writing. As a control, we evaluate event-based Latent Space detection. Paraphrasing changed 87% of its event sequences (Jaccard = 0.067), and homoglyphs altered 70% of the extracted verbs even though extraction still ran (Jaccard = 0.30). Its best domain AUC was 0.577. RoBERTa's robustness seems specific to the features it uses, and structural abstraction did not make detection more robust.
Claudiu Creanga, Liviu Dinu
Interdisciplinary School of Doctoral Studies University of Bucharest, Romania · Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics University of Bucharest, Romania