AI-generated text detection is commonly framed as a binary document-level judgment about whether a text is human-written or machine-generated. This framing breaks down for mixed-origin writing, where content origin and expression origin may differ. We cast mixed-origin detection as dimension-to-composition source attribution, inferring content origin and expression origin before composing them into four collaboration types. We propose Dimension-to-Composition Routing (D2C-Routing), which routes content-side and expression-side evidence to supervised dimension heads before a learned gated composition layer predicts the final label. On MixD2C, a reconstructed split derived from the HART mixed-origin benchmark, our disclosed D2C-Routing-based detector system reaches 0.8603 four-way Avg TPR@1%FPR, 6.5 points above the same-split RACE-local rerun. Core ablations support the routing design, while error analysis shows that distinguishing AI-content/human-expression from fully AI-generated text remains the hardest boundary. Code is available at https://github.com/bystander563/d2c-routing-artifact.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Mixed-origin text requires dimension-to-composition detection. We represent attribution through two source dimensions: content origin and expression origin. Their composition yields four labels: HH, HA, AH, and AA. Binary detection collapses mixed-origin cases, while D2C-Routing predicts the two source dimensions before composing the final collaboration type.
Panel A: Labels and targets
Label
Content
Expression
C tgt.
E tgt.
HH
human
human
0
0
HA
human
AI
0
1
AH
AI
human
1
0
AA
AI
AI
1
1
Panel B: Official task collapses
Table 1: Label space. HH/HA/AH/AA compose content origin and expression origin. The two derived binary targets, content origin and expression origin, supervise D2C-Routing; Level-1/2/3 are official HART evaluation collapses, not additional training labels.
Figure 2: D2C-Routing architecture. The figure shows the single-model architecture: the observed document feeds content and expression evidence pathways, supervised source heads estimate the two dimensions, and a learned gate composes them into HH/HA/AH/AA predictions. The separate D2C-base Fusion detector system combines multiple D2C-Routing outputs and is reported only in result tables.
Table 2: Four-way low-FPR comparison. “Published” rows are representative RACE Table 2 values from a related HART reconstruction rather than exact-split reruns; “MixD2C” rows use the identical local split and evaluator. The dagger denotes our rerun of released RACE code. RACE reports Humanized before LLM-Generated; we remap these to AH and AA. The full published reference set and scalar official-task diagnostics are in Appendix A.1 – A.2 .
Figure 3: Same-split low-FPR behavior on MixD2C. We compare RACE-local, D2C-Routing dual encoder, and D2C-base Fusion on the same MixD2C test split. Our rows mainly improve low-FPR ranking on AA, while RACE-local remains competitive on AH.
Group
Model
Setting
AUROC
Avg TPR@1
AA TPR@1
F1-score
Role
Single
RoBERTa-base
3 seeds
0.9832
0.7666
0.5447
0.8940
Text-only
Flat concat
3 seeds
0.9851
0.7923
0.6113
0.8987
Flat features
D2C-Routing
shared, 3 seeds
0.9846
0.8110
0.6841
0.8995
Shared encoder
D2C-Routing
dual, 3 seeds
0.9858
0.8440
0.7701
0.9054
Best single model
Cost
Text-only 5 × uniform
623.24M / 5 calls
0.9859
0.8241
0.7385
0.8932
Cost control
Flat features 5 × uniform
623.87M / 5 calls
0.9880
0.8443
0.7772
0.9093
Cost control
Table 3: Matched controls and core ablations. Single-model rows use the same encoder family; cost rows match total parameter scale and disclose online forward calls. The D2C cost row reports a separately evaluated AH/AA-calibrated audit system; Table 2 reports the final detector system.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Macro AUROC
HH TPR@1
HA TPR@1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
Avg TPR@1
RoBERTa
0.9222
0.9936
0.6806
0.7092
0.6314
0.7537
RoBERTa-DANN
0.9617
0.9688
0.7503
0.7178
0.4889
0.7314
CoCo
0.9767
0.9968
0.7577
0.7943
0.6393
0.7970
SeqXGPT
0.8987
0.9838
0.1523
0.3168
0.1432
0.3990
DeTeCtive
0.9574
0.9862
0.0000
0.7723
0.0000
0.4396
LF-Motifs
0.9820
0.9668
0.6961
0.7562
0.6701
0.7723
Appendix
Table A2: Full RACE Table 2 reference set, displayed in HH/HA/AH/AA order.
Local run
Macro AUROC
Macro-F1
HH TPR@1
HA TPR@1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
Avg TPR@1
RACE-local, 20ep strict rstdt
0.9849
0.9030
0.9888
0.8463
0.7696
0.5752
0.7950
Appendix
Table A3: Local public-code RACE rerun on the exact MixD2C split.
Detector
L3 Essay
L3 ArXiv
L3 Writing
L3 ALL
L2 Essay
L2 ArXiv
L2 Writing
L2 ALL
L1 Essay
L1 ArXiv
L1 Writing
L1 ALL
RoBERTa(ChatGPT)
0.636
0.796
0.653
0.662 (16%)
0.435
0.687
0.498
0.502 (8%)
0.471
0.955
0.606
0.566 (9%)
RADAR
0.692
0.849
0.647
0.728 (14%)
0.566
0.814
0.630
0.687 (10%)
0.705
0.857
0.700
0.758 (20%)
Log-Perplexity
0.868
0.850
0.811
0.799 (33%)
0.364
0.485
0.438
0.473 (11%)
0.769
0.530
0.625
0.576 (6%)
Log-Rank
0.867
0.874
0.813
0.814 (39%)
0.380
0.460
0.441
0.465 (11%)
0.739
0.542
0.611
0.573 (8%)
LRR
0.835
0.909
0.797
0.840 (50%)
0.560
0.616
0.551
0.573 (25%)
0.616
0.576
0.558
0.568 (19%)
Glimpse
0.929
0.869
0.819
0.849 (58%)
0.754
0.737
0.625
0.676 (30%)
0.878
0.719
0.618
0.688 (22%)
Appendix
Table A4: Original HART English detector references under the original HART protocol.
Detector
Proxy LM / model
L1 AUROC / F1 / TPR@5
L2 AUROC / F1 / TPR@5
L3 AUROC / F1 / TPR@5
SpecDetect
gpt2
0.6859 / 0.8808 / 0.2137
0.5877 / 0.6862 / 0.1744
0.6098 / 0.6259 / 0.2013
SpecDetect
gpt2-xl
0.7129 / 0.8864 / 0.2892
0.6415 / 0.6937 / 0.2694
0.6693 / 0.6333 / 0.2958
Fast-DetectGPT analytic
gpt2-xl scoring/reference
0.7205 / 0.8582 / 0.3688
0.6581 / 0.6676 / 0.3419
0.6883 / 0.6179 / 0.3725
Binoculars proxy
observer=gpt2-xl, performer=gpt2
0.6314 / 0.8571 / 0.2687
0.5588 / 0.6667 / 0.2256
0.5845 / 0.6075 / 0.2357
Appendix
Table A5: Local MixD2C scalar-detector reruns for official Level-1/2/3 collapses.
Model
Source
Level-1
Level-2
Level-3
SpecDetect-gpt2-xl
local scalar rerun
0.7129 / 0.8864 / 0.2892
0.6415 / 0.6937 / 0.2694
0.6693 / 0.6333 / 0.2958
Fast-DetectGPT analytic
local scalar rerun
0.7205 / 0.8582 / 0.3688
0.6581 / 0.6676 / 0.3419
0.6883 / 0.6179 / 0.3725
RACE-local
same-split local rerun
0.9985 / 0.9925 / 0.9967
0.9943 / 0.9641 / 0.9731
0.9841 / 0.9365 / 0.9398
D2C-base Fusion
ours, probability collapse
0.9988 / 0.9925 / 0.9962
0.9959 / 0.9702 / 0.9850
0.9906 / 0.9498 / 0.9685
Appendix
Table A6: Same-split official-task collapses on MixD2C. Each cell reports AUROC / F1 / TPR@5%FPR.
Model
Macro AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Macro-F1
HH TPR@1
HA TPR@1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
Use in paper
D2C-Routing (base no-syntax + AA rank)
0.9845
0.8206
0.9051
0.9888
0.8613
0.7549
0.6777
Routed baseline
Frozen D2C-Routing (last layer)
0.9581
0.5444
0.8165
0.9363
0.2825
0.5735
0.3854
Frozen-probe control
Flat all-features RoBERTa-base
0.9873
0.7982
0.9071
0.9875
0.8138
0.7549
0.6368
Feature-stacking control
D2C-Routing (DistilRoBERTa)
0.9776
0.7414
0.8691
0.9788
0.7425
0.6912
0.5530
Small-backbone control
D2C-Routing (Longformer-base, 512 tokens)
0.9802
0.7639
0.8815
0.9825
0.7413
0.7059
0.6261
Backbone/length control
D2C-Routing (DeBERTa-base no-syntax)
0.9867
0.8158
0.9005
0.9875
0.8338
0.7451
0.6970
Alternative backbone control
Appendix
Table A7: Supplemental architecture controls on MixD2C.
Model
Params
Macro AUROC
Macro-F1
Avg TPR@1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
ModernBERT text-only
149.02M
0.9850±0.0022
0.9089±0.0076
0.8032±0.0136
0.7484±0.0172
0.6562±0.0389
ModernBERT D2C
149.73M
0.9851±0.0011
0.9026±0.0025
0.8073±0.0138
0.7435±0.0113
0.6796±0.0366
DeBERTa-base D2C
–
0.9877±0.0009
0.9094±0.0076
0.8320±0.0157
0.7614±0.0142
0.7051±0.0372
Appendix
Table A8: Three-seed modern-backbone comparisons on MixD2C. Values are mean ± standard deviation.
Routing
Macro AUROC
Macro-F1
Avg TPR@1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
Correct role-aligned
0.9846±0.0010
0.8995±0.0100
0.8110±0.0165
0.7435±0.0242
0.6841±0.0310
Swapped
0.9845±0.0033
0.8950±0.0157
0.8076±0.0254
0.7222±0.0396
0.6991±0.0326
Fixed random
0.9849±0.0005
0.9058±0.0057
0.8034±0.0109
0.7451±0.0147
0.6476±0.0591
Flat concat
0.9851±0.0019
0.8987±0.0079
0.7923±0.0072
0.7516±0.0057
0.6113±0.0499
Appendix
Table A9: Three-seed comparison of correct, swapped, fixed-random, and flat evidence routing on MixD2C.
Model/system
Macro-F1
Macro AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Interpretation
Text-only dev-selected ensemble
0.9047
0.9883
0.8289
Matched ensemble
Flat-concat dev-selected ensemble
0.8903
0.9863
0.8191
Matched ensemble
Calibrated D2C system
0.9100
0.9877
0.8507
Competitive grouped robustness
Appendix
Table A10: Group-aware MixD2C results with matched detector systems. Paired intervals for D2C versus text-only cross zero for Macro-F1 and Avg TPR@1; only the accuracy difference is significant.
Held-out domain
Model
Macro AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Macro-F1
AA TPR@1
Essay
D2C-Routing
0.9000
0.3663
0.6414
0.1834
Essay
Text-only
0.8894
0.3094
0.6198
0.0000
ArXiv
D2C-Routing
0.9495
0.6760
0.6935
0.8006
ArXiv
Text-only
0.9641
0.7464
0.8051
0.7721
News
D2C-Routing
0.9096
0.3847
0.5555
0.3305
News
Text-only
0.9124
0.4363
0.5827
0.3675
Appendix
Table A11: Leave-one-domain-out HART transfer checks.
Dataset
Model
AUROC
F1
Accuracy
TPR@1
TPR@5
RAID test
Text-only
0.7312
0.5464
0.6493
0.2650
0.3435
RAID test
D2C-Routing (no-external)
0.7210
0.5713
0.6270
0.2010
0.2550
RAID nonnative
Text-only
0.9349
0.8639
0.8736
0.5495
0.7363
RAID nonnative
D2C-Routing (no-external)
0.9144
0.8095
0.8242
0.2198
0.6374
Appendix
Table A12: RAID binary transfer checks.
Setting
Supervision
Result
Claim role
FAIDSet clean test ( Ta et al., 2026 )
Target-supervised adaptation
Accuracy 0.9618; Macro-F1 0.9599
External adaptation, current public split
APT-Eval HH/HA ( Saha and Feizi, 2025 )
Zero-shot expression score
AUROC 0.8993; 293/300 paired ranking
Expression-origin transfer
PAN LLM-DetectAIve HH/HA ( Bevendorff et al., 2025 )
Zero-shot expression score
AUROC 0.9392; TPR@1 0.6491 ( N=18,480 )
Expression-origin transfer
PAN machine-mediated content contrast
Zero-shot content score
AUROC 0.8012 vs matched text 0.7961 ( N=20,703 )
Small content-origin transfer
MixSet HART-style reconstruction ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
Target-supervised adaptation
Accuracy 0.8504; Macro-F1 0.7811
External reconstructed four-process task
MixSet direct four-way transfer
Zero-shot, no adaptation
Macro-F1 0.2262; AUROC 0.4372
Negative broad-OOD result
Appendix
Table A14: Protocol-separated robustness evidence. FAIDSet and the HART-style MixSet reconstruction use target supervision; APT/PAN use HART-trained scores without target tuning. MixSet four-way labels are reconstructed from released transformation provenance, not native benchmark labels.
Feature group
Content-origin AUROC
Expression-origin AUROC
Four-way Macro AUROC
Four-way Macro-F1
Entity/coherence
0.8261
0.7277
0.7460
0.4363
Expression features
0.9300
0.8515
0.8777
0.5907
RST discourse
0.8240
0.7250
0.7242
0.4100
Entity + RST
0.8842
0.7747
0.7843
0.4794
All evidence
0.9408
0.8595
0.8781
0.6150
Appendix
Table A15: Direct evidence probe results. The table reports dimension-level and four-way probe performance from pre-extracted evidence features.
Figure 4: Heatmap summary of source-dimension and four-way evidence probes.
Model
AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Macro-F1
AA TPR@1
D2C-Routing (full)
0.9846
0.8110
0.8995
0.6841
No RST
0.9814
0.7639
0.8869
0.5447
No entity/coherence
0.9833
0.7868
0.8969
0.6098
No expression features
0.9802
0.7541
0.8831
0.5805
No routed external features
0.9843
0.7988
0.8948
0.6655
Appendix
Table A16: Feature-removal ablations.
Setting
AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Macro-F1
AA TPR@1
D2C-Routing (full)
0.9846
0.8110
0.8995
0.6841
Remove lexical-connective realization
0.9773
0.7444
0.8860
0.5989
Remove rhythm/POS
0.9835
0.7922
0.8943
0.6287
Remove surface-regularity
0.9828
0.7878
0.8911
0.6177
Lexical-connective realization only
0.9808
0.7534
0.8809
0.5578
Rhythm/POS only
0.9825
0.7567
0.8830
0.5638
Appendix
Table A17: Expression-side subgroup ablations.
Composition
AUROC
Avg TPR@1
Macro-F1
AH TPR@1
AA TPR@1
Learned vector gate
0.9846
0.8110
0.8995
0.7435
0.6841
Fixed average of member models
0.9805
0.7754
0.8880
0.7010
0.6072
Concat without gate
0.9814
0.7942
0.8959
0.7141
0.6846
Hard factorized composition
0.9810
0.7868
0.8971
0.7092
0.6213
Appendix
Table A18: Composition alternatives.
Class
Content acc.
Expression acc.
Correct expr. prob.
Four-way acc.
AH
0.9477
0.6438
0.6374
0.6634
AA
0.9721
0.9988
0.9958
0.9723
Appendix
Table A19: Three-seed branch diagnosis for the two AI-content classes.
Detecting AI-generated text is becoming increasingly challenging as modern language models approach human-level fluency and can evade detectors that rely on surface statistics or likelihood-based signals. We propose AEyeDE, an attribution-driven approach to human-AI authorship detection that leverages model attention as a discriminative signal. Specifically, we extract attention-based attribution matrices for both human- and AI-generated text using a proxy Transformer model with white-box access and train a lightweight Convolutional Neural Network to learn representations from these attribution maps. Across encoder-decoder translation settings, our method consistently outperforms a text-only baseline. In decoder-only settings, it performs strongly in generator-specific detection, remains competitive on standard benchmarks, and shows robustness under cross-dataset transfer and alternative-spelling perturbations. We further show that attention maps exhibit recurring local structures whose relative frequencies differ consistently between human- and AI-generated text across datasets and proxy models. These findings suggest that attention-based attribution maps provide a complementary and interpretable signal for AI-generated text detection. We will make the code publicly available to support future research.
Aria Nourbakhsh, Adelaide Danilov, Christoph Schommer +1
Department of Computer Science, University of Luxembourg
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.
Aldan Creo, Suraj Ranganath
School of Computing, Information and Data Sciences University of California, San Diego United States of America
Recent AI-generated text detection work often introduces a new benchmark together with a specialized detector tailored to it. We revisit this practice from a baseline-first perspective. Across several benchmarks, we show that a plain, fully fine-tuned RoBERTa matches or exceeds the specialized detectors those benchmarks are built around. This suggests that much of the recent architectural complexity is not what drives strong in-distribution detection. The remaining challenge is the distribution shift. The same strong baseline degrades sharply when the topic domain or generating model changes at test time, and simply adding more source data does not close the gap. We identify a key failure mode: under distribution shift, the detector can assign high-confidence machine labels to human-written text from unseen domains. We then study two lightweight domain adaptation methods to address this problem: K-shot adaptation with first-order MAML over LoRA adapters, and a per-sample confidence-weighted ensemble built on top of the adapted detector. Overall, our results suggest that progress in AI-generated text detection should be measured not only by in-distribution performance, but also by robustness under distribution shift.
Zhuoer Shen, Mingyi Wang, Shaofeng Zou +1
Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara · School of ECEE, Arizona State University