READER: Reasoning-Enhanced AI-Generated Text Detection

Large language models are now embedded in everyday writing workflows, making reliable AI-generated text detection important for academic integrity, content moderation, and provenance tracking. In practice, however, a detector must do more than achieve high aggregate AUROC on clean, in-distribution human and AI text: it should remain robust to attacks and adversarial rewrites, transfer to unseen generators and domains, and operate at low false-positive rates (FPR). Most existing detectors optimize a single AI/Human objective, giving the representation little incentive to learn generator, attack, or domain structure once the binary task saturates. We introduce MELD (Multi-Task Equilibrated Learning Detector), a deployable detector for AI-generated text that enriches binary detection with auxiliary supervision. MELD attaches generator-family, attack-type, and source-domain heads to a shared encoder, and balances the four losses with learned homoscedastic uncertainty weights. To improve robustness, an EMA teacher predicts on clean inputs while an attack-augmented student is distilled toward the teacher. MELD further uses a hard-negative pairwise ranking loss to enlarge the score margin between AI-generated texts and the most confusable human texts. At inference, all auxiliary heads are discarded, giving MELD the same interface and cost as a standard detector. On the public RAID leaderboard, MELD is the strongest open-source detector and is competitive with leading commercial models, especially under attack and at low FPR. Across standard held-out benchmarks, MELD matches or outperforms supervised baselines. We further introduce MELD-eval, a held-out evaluation pool built from recent chat models released by four major LLM providers. Without additional finetuning, MELD achieves 99.9% TPR at 1% FPR on MELD-eval, while many baselines degrade sharply.

Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs). While prior work has shown that rewriting and paraphrasing can degrade detector performance, it remains unclear whether performance measured on this conventional benchmark predicts detector behavior when human-authored content is rewritten by an LLM. To address this gap, we introduce Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark (ARB), built from 1,800 human source texts (600 each from XSum, WritingPrompts, and OpenWebText) and four open-weight generators (Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B, Gemma-2-9B). Each source item yields four matched variants: human-written (HUMAN), direct LLM generation (Free-LLM), LLM-rewritten human text (H2L), and same-generator LLM-rewritten LLM text (LLM2L). We evaluated five detectors (FastDetectGPT, Binoculars-falcon-7b, RADAR, BERT-Defense, RoBERTa-Defense) at a strict 1%-false-positive operating point (TPR@1%FPR). FastDetectGPT and Binoculars-falcon-7b detected 91.2% and 93.5% of direct LLM text, but only 30.8% and 15.1% of human text an LLM had rewritten, a drop of 60-78 percentage points. The same detectors retained 78.3% and 83.0% recall when LLM text was rewritten by the same model, a much smaller decline of 10-13 points. RADAR followed the same pattern (66.8% to 12.2%), while BERT-Defense and RoBERTa-Defense stayed below 3% recall across all regimes. These results show that detector performance measured on the conventional human-vs-LLM benchmark does not transfer to human-authored text revised by an LLM, even though the same detectors remain largely robust to LLM-only rewriting.

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.