AI-Generated Text Detection

We study the robustness of keystroke dynamics for detecting large language model (LLM)-assisted writing. We introduce a Vietnamese keystroke dataset capturing realistic writing modes, including bona fide composition, transcription, and paraphrasing. We also define a behaviorally grounded threat model in which users deliberately alter typing patterns. To implement the threat model, we create behaviorally manipulated variants of the data designed to evade keystroke-based detection. We evaluate four keystroke modeling approaches: temporal and rhythmic representations, and sequential representations modeled with a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) and TypeNet, under user-independent and context-independent settings. The results show that sequential models outperform feature-based approaches in most cases and that keystroke signals encode discriminative information about the writing process. However, detection is not uniformly robust: transcription is reliably identified, while paraphrasing and adversarially manipulated samples are frequently misclassified as bona fide when not explicitly modeled. To address this, we incorporate adversarial training using behaviorally manipulated data, which substantially improves separability and robustness. These results suggest that keystroke-based detection depends critically on exposure to diverse writing behaviors, and that strong performance under limited conditions does not generalize to realistic or adversarial settings without targeted modeling.

While modern AI detectors identify who wrote the words, emerging policies on AI use increasingly hinge on a different question: who came up with the ideas? We introduce IdeaLens, a detector that identifies whether a document's ideas came from a human or AI (idea provenance), regardless of who wrote its words. To focus IdeaLens on ideas rather than prose, we represent documents as outlines: lists of items that each pair a discourse role with a brief, paraphrased description of the content, minimizing word-level overlap with the raw text. We train IdeaLens on 1M FineWeb documents with silver labels from Pangram, a prose provenance detector. Since the outlines are largely stripped of surface-level information, the labels must be fit mainly through the ideas. In a controlled study, IdeaLens's AI flag rate drops from 95% to 7% as models write from increasingly detailed human plans, while Pangram 4 still flags 92%; from AI-derived plans, IdeaLens stays above 96%. Conversely, on a new dataset of 50 stories that human authors wrote from AI-generated plans, IdeaLens flags 68% of the stories as AI, compared to 8% for Pangram 4. On a comprehensive suite of 19 existing detection benchmarks, we show that IdeaLens maintains strong detection rates at low false positive rates, suggesting that ideas themselves provide a powerful discriminative signal, and its performance holds across domains, formats, and languages. Finally, we examine 90K predictions from IdeaLens to characterize systematic differences between human and AI ideation. We release our models and labeled datasets to facilitate future research on idea provenance detection.

Robust detection of AI-generated text under deployment conditions is challenging: distribution shifts across domains and generators, adversarial perturbations of the input surface, and the absence of target-domain labels for threshold calibration all degrade detectors that perform well in-domain. We present DeBERTa-ConPara, a deployment-oriented detector combining attack-aware Unicode preprocessing with a contextual transformer encoder trained over HC3 Plus, M4, MAGE and RAID. Our central finding is that preprocessing acts in opposite directions depending on where it is applied: normalising the training corpus deduplicates it, collapsing 35.4% of RAID rows into copies of their clean siblings and deleting the adversarial supervision, whereas normalising at inference is an effective defence. A factorial varying the two placements independently identifies raw training with normalised inference as the best configuration, reaching 99.61% AUROC, 99.01% TPR@5% FPR and 96.57% TPR@1% FPR on the official RAID hidden test, alongside 93.14% average balanced accuracy across HC3 Plus and MAGE under a fixed threshold. The gain is confined to two of twelve attack classes: homoglyph and zero-width-space insertion rise from 11.05% and 1.12% to 96.98%. The same signature reproduces in a zero-shot detector of different architecture, showing the effect belongs to the attacks rather than to our model. We additionally report two negative results: semantic-invariance augmentation through paraphrasing and supervised contrastive learning (ConPara) does not improve the best configuration, and the handcrafted feature-fusion branch is inert in distribution and harmful outside it.

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.

Generative content is increasingly entering the production and dissemination of news, transforming fake news from manually fabricated or simply manipulated material into complex forms in which native and generated content jointly participate. Existing multimodal fake news detection research primarily focuses on veracity assessment and rarely characterizes how generativity differences affect the reliability of evidence. In contrast, AIGC detection primarily determines whether content is generated or modified by generative models, but it does not by itself establish whether the underlying news event is true. To bridge the separation between these tasks in data and evaluation, we construct Weibo26, a multimodal fake news detection dataset for generative-content scenarios. On this basis, we propose the Generativity-Aware Hierarchical Reasoning (GAHR) framework, which combines global judgment with local correction so that generativity information participates in news-veracity reasoning. Experiments on multiple existing fake news detection benchmarks and Weibo26 show that GAHR achieves competitive veracity-detection performance while effectively identifying generative content.

Automated detection of LLM-generated texts (LGTs) is critical, yet dedicated detectors often struggle to generalize across domains and models. While general-purpose LLMs offer flexible zero-shot authorship classification with explanatory rationale, their detection behavior, especially regarding self-detection versus cross-detection across model generations, remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate 15 LLMs spanning three model generations as both generators and detectors. Using a benchmark of 1,000 human-written texts and 15,000 LGTs (1,000 per model), we collected over 233,000 binary classifications alongside natural-language explanations. Our results reveal that detection efficacy is primarily driven by detector capability rather than generator provenance, although outputs from newer generators remain notably harder to detect. Crucially, statistical comparisons show no systematic advantage or disadvantage for self-detection across models. Error analysis further exposes generational bias shifts: first-generation detectors under-detect LGTs (high false-negative rates), second-generation detectors over-flag human texts (high false-positive rates), and the latest models achieve balanced trade-offs. Finally, we highlight significant inconsistencies in how different LLMs apply textual cues to justify their decisions. Code: https://github.com/hyyuan/detect-llm-generated-texts.

As LLM-generated text becomes increasingly human-like, accurately localizing LLM-authored spans in human-LLM co-authored documents is important for attribution and accountability in cases involving copyright infringement, fraud, and other harmful uses of AI-generated content. Sentence-level detectors provide local authorship evidence, but content variation can cause score fluctuations even among sentences from the same source, creating spurious boundaries. Recovering a coherent document partition therefore remains challenging when both the number and locations of authorship transitions are unknown. We propose Local-Evidence-Aware Change-Point Detection (LA-CPD), a structured method that transforms noisy sentence-level score sequences into coherent authorship segments. Given scores from a frozen local detector, LA-CPD combines a length-weighted within-segment residual with a windowed two-mean contrast to capture segment consistency and sustained changes around candidate cut points. Dynamic programming optimizes cut locations for each candidate count, while an AIC-style criterion selects the final partition, yielding sentence labels, authorship boundaries, and maximal LLM-authored spans. On a held-out human-LLM co-authored test set, LA-CPD outperforms WCP+AIC, increasing sentence-level accuracy from 0.747 to 0.796 while improving boundary localization and LLM-span delineation.

The rapid proliferation of highly realistic AI-Generated Content (AIGC) necessitates robust and interpretable detection mechanisms. However, existing detectors are predominantly confined to single modalities and provide binary outputs without reasoning. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) present a promising solution, their development is constrained by the scarcity of multimodal reasoning data and the reasoning-detection optimization dilemma, where explicit reasoning supervision can compromise detection accuracy. To this end, we introduce IVT-Set, a comprehensive dataset comprising over 152K diverse image, video, and text samples equipped with multi-granularity Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning trajectories. Based on it, we propose IVT-Guard, a pioneering framework for unified and interpretable AIGC detection across image, video, and text modalities. Furthermore, to overcome the aforementioned optimization dilemma, we design a novel three-stage training paradigm: Artifact-Aware Pre-training, Artifact-to-Evidence Supervised Fine-Tuning via artifact-aware injection, and Evidence-Verdict Consistency Group Relative Policy Optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that IVT-Guard achieves state-of-the-art detection performance across in-domain, out-of-domain, and cross-dataset settings while delivering faithful reasoning. Code and data will be released.

Large Language Model (LLM) pollution occurs when synthetic responses contaminate data intended to capture human behavior. High deployment costs have so far limited the risk posed by autonomous survey agents. However, open-weight models paired with open-source agentic frameworks may have removed this barrier. We compared the performance and detectability of nine agent configurations, ranging from fully open variants to closed commercial ones. Each agent autonomously completed a survey containing multiple response types yielding various detection checks. Fully open agents ran locally without usage fees and performed competitively with commercial alternatives. Open and commercial agents failed different sets of checks, and no single check reliably detected all agents, but open-text responses discriminated best between agents and humans. These findings identify fully open agents as a distinct risk for LLM pollution and support multilayered detection strategies emphasizing open-text analysis.

We study the detection of LLM-generated text under editing and contamination. Modeling human and machine text as finite-order Markov processes with Huber contamination, we characterize an exact boundary for reliable detection under our assumptions. Detection is impossible when contamination is sufficiently large relative to clean-source separation. Below this boundary, a collection of clipped likelihood-ratio tests achieves vanishing worst-case errors. This construction motivates clipping as a simple modification of existing statistical detectors. For a broad class of additive scores, we identify conditions under which the clipped test is consistent while the raw test's worst-case power tends to zero. We evaluate seven detectors across three datasets and three generation models, and on the RAID benchmark. Clipping improves robustness in both studies, with gains varying across detectors and contamination settings. For example, at a target false-positive rate of 5%, clipping improves the log-likelihood--log-rank ratio (LRR) detector's true-positive rate by a median of 8.3 percentage points in the controlled study and 2.1 and 4.3 points in rate- and attack-specific RAID evaluations, respectively.

Conference policies distinguish using Large Language Models (LLMs) to polish one's own review from delegating the critique, but current Artificial Text Detection (ATD) methods largely measure surface form rather than the origin of its content. We instead measure the external information carried by a review: information not explained by the reviewed paper and a generic reviewing instruction. We propose Self-Conditioning, an unsupervised information-theoretic estimator that compares the likelihood of a review under its production context with its likelihood when that context is augmented with hints extracted from the review itself. On the IntelLabs peer-review benchmark, Self-Conditioning separates fully-delegated from machine-polished reviews with AUC up to $1.0$ while remaining largely insensitive to surface rewriting. Moreover, as generators receive increasing amounts of externally-provided information, their scores move monotonically towards the human regime, unlike standard ATD baselines. High-temperature sampling can evade the estimator, but at the cost of output quality.

Distinguishing GPT-assisted from independently authored student writing has become a critical challenge in academia. This paper evaluates the discriminative capability of interpretable stylometric features extracted solely from submitted text. Using data from 90 participants who wrote both independently and with ChatGPT assistance, we evaluate eight machine learning classifiers while keeping data from the same participant together during validation. On the held-out test set, Random Forest achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.87 and an F1-score of 0.84, with False Positive and False Negative rates of 22.2% and 11.1%, respectively. SHAP analysis shows that lexical and grammatical characteristics drive the resulting predictions. The findings suggest that transparent, text-intrinsic features provide measurable signal for detecting GPT-assisted writing.

Disaster social sensing converts public social-media posts into evidence for situational awareness and humanitarian response, but plausible LLM-generated posts can contaminate this information stream and distort assessments of needs, damage, and resource priorities. This study empirically investigates whether text-based detectors can distinguish human-authored from LLM-generated disaster posts and what textual cues underlie their judgments. We construct CrisisFake, a Qwen2.5-7B-based dataset of 12,000 texts organized into 3,000 matched semantic units from nine disasters. Each unit contains an original human post, a minimally LLM-proofread human post, a fact-preserving LLM-generated post produced using LoRA, and an affectively reframed version of the artificial post. A separate 6,000-text corpus spanning 42 disaster events is independently constructed to support model selection and threshold calibration. We evaluate OSM-Det, Fast-DetectGPT, Binoculars, and direct LLM judges across five model families, and further examine how disaster-domain calibration and superficial linguistic cues, such as retweet markers, user mentions, hashtags, URLs, punctuation, and text length, affect detector performance. Across fourteen frozen configurations, AUROC ranges from 0.402 to 0.517, while the best prospective recall at a calibration-derived low-false-positive operating point is only 3.6%, indicating near-chance discrimination. For OSM-Det, a disaster-calibrated linear head improves AUROC to 0.817; however, a seven-feature textual classifier alone reaches AUROC 0.784 on the original-versus-factual-LLM contrast, and neutralizing identified surface asymmetries reduces the corresponding linear-head AUROC from 0.733 to 0.594. These findings provide empirical evidence that LLM-generated text detection is largely driven by linguistic cues and remains insufficiently robust for short-form disaster social media.

The use of LLMs to complete online surveys impacts the validity of survey-based research, but detecting such usage remains underexplored. We introduce an initial benchmark dataset, namely ASURRE, for AI-assisted survey participation to capture usage strategies ranging from full generation and revision to persona-grounded agentic completion. Controlled by these strategies, LLM-assisted survey responses are generated using multiple LLMs on three real-world surveys in different disciplines, paired with genuine human responses. Our evaluation of existing machine-generated text (MGT) detectors shows that naive AI usage is readily detectable, whereas persona-grounded agents that mimic entire respondents push detector performance toward chance. We further show that agentic completion cannot fully replicate respondent-level behaviour and leaves distinctive behavioural traces. While individual cues can be circumvented by targeted prompting, a simple few-shot, training-free aggregator over these cues improves mean AUROC by +0.14 over the best existing detector across agentic settings. Our project is available at https://github.com/mike-qz-wang/ASURRE.

This paper investigates the generation and human evaluation of Japanese haiku by contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on authorship perception and aesthetic judgment within a constrained poetic form. Using a few-shot prompting strategy, Japanese haiku were generated across a heterogeneous set of large language models, including open- and closed-source systems, medium-scale and large-scale architectures, models with native or adapted Japanese support, and multilingual proprietary models. These AI-generated haiku were combined with human-written ones and presented in a questionnaire distributed to students at Japanese universities in Tokyo. The survey assessed whether respondents could distinguish between AI-generated and human-written haiku and which cues informed their judgments. Recognition accuracy varied across models. GPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and StableLM-7B performed at approximately chance level (approx 0.50), whereas LLM-JP, Gemma-2B, and LLaMA-2 showed moderate detectability (approx 0.59-0.67). However, recognition was strongly item-dependent. Ratings of fluency, coherence, poeticness, and related aesthetic dimensions predicted perceived humanness but not correct classification, indicating an attribution bias linked to aesthetic evaluation and revealing a dissociation between aesthetic evaluation and true authorship detection. The extended analysis additionally examines generation-constraint adherence, participant-level characteristics, and exploratory LLM-based evaluations of haiku authorship. Overall, the findings suggest that as LLMs improve, surface-level creative plausibility may reduce reliable human discrimination within constrained poetic settings.

Word-level detectors identify unedited AI-generated text almost perfectly, but the literature documents their brittleness under rewording, and a word-level score neither characterizes a text nor identifies which AI model wrote it. We ask whether AI-generated text can be identified one level deeper, from structural signatures: how information is presented, in what order, with what evidence, and in what voice. We replicate StoryScope (Russell et al., 2026), which showed such patterns for AI-generated fiction, on commercial content: 2,250 pre-ChatGPT human blog posts from 268 company domains against 11,250 AI mirrors from five frontier models. A 203-feature instrument, applied by an LLM and validated in a human gold-annotation session (human-human kappa 0.939, human-model 0.951), detects AI posts from its 176 structural features alone at 97.0 macro-F1 on held-out companies, nearly unchanged (96.1) when every AI post is reworded by its own model. The signal characterizes and attributes: AI posts share a tidy, self-announcing shape, 68.6% are attributed to the correct source against a 16.7% chance rate, and human posts occupy rare structural configurations. All effects replicate StoryScope's, consistent in direction and at least as large in magnitude. We release pipeline, instrument, prompts, code, and aggregate artifacts.

Large language models trained recursively on their own or other models' outputs undergo model collapse, in which distributional tails and factual accuracy deteriorate while fluency survives. Prior work diagnoses collapse after training; the actionable problem is screening a corpus of unknown provenance before training. We introduce SynthSentry, a corpus-level, model-agnostic contamination signal requiring no access to the generating model, no generation history, and no synthetic labels. The score is a distributional divergence over three statistics: lexical diversity collapse, n-gram tail truncation, and perplexity variance across reference models. We evaluate on corpora contaminated by small open-weight generators and an instruction-tuned open-weight model under a leave-one-generator-out protocol. A domain-stratified study measures false positives on naturally repetitive human text (legal, clinical, source code). The score ranks corpora by severity with little loss when whole generator families are held out. Per-domain calibration holds near its nominal false-positive budget once covariance shrinkage and a bootstrap threshold replace a naive quantile, which runs four times over budget. A downstream fine-tuning check showed no contamination-driven accuracy deficit at our scale, so whether pruning recovers one remains open; the same run shows over-pruning risk once pruning exceeds the true contamination fraction. We frame screening as a data-curation defense rather than a post-hoc diagnosis and release the scoring toolkit. All results are small-scale; scope is English-language, batch-mode corpus screening. Contamination sources are single-generation or hand-authored rather than recursively generated, so results speak to synthetic contamination generally and not to recursion depth.

Excess vocabulary, a word's frequency above its pre-2023 trend, is how the change in scholarly English after 2022 has been measured. We adapt it to Korean with morphological units on 398,296 KCI abstracts (2018-August 2026), with 47,165 Vietnamese abstracts for comparison. Placebo floors are 0.1-2.2 points for the single-word statistic and at most 2.9 for the re-selected split-half set statistic. Korean abstracts show nothing in 2023, onset in late 2024, a rise through 2025 flattening in mid-2026: sisahada "suggest" appears in 21.4% of 2026 abstracts against 5.3% expected; plain verbs like araboda "look into" fall to a quarter of trend. Under stated assumptions the single-word conditional lower bound on LLM-processed abstracts is 3.5%, 10.5% and 16.1% for 2024-2026 and a split-half set bound 7.8%, 20.6% and 33.0%. Holzwarth et al.'s estimator under the same discipline gives 41.9% and 72.1% for 2025-2026. Subject-matter controls reduce but do not remove it: restricting the set to lemmas three language-model annotators all call style leaves 14.7 of the 33.0 points, and pairing each 2026 abstract with its journal's closest base-period abstract leaves 34.1. Tested translation routes do not explain it: the surface marks of translated Korean fall as the markers rise. In the same articles' English abstracts the excess appears a year earlier; where the English side carries none, the Korean shift persists at 30 to 66% of the rate where it does. Control abstracts from three providers reproduce the rising words, with marker turnover consistent with model generations; implied prevalences are scenario-dependent.

LLMs have been rapidly adopted across writing tasks, prompting the development of tools for detecting LLM-generated text. Yet, these tools largely measure how much of a document's surface text was written by an LLM and aren't fundamentally designed to measure how much of the information content or ideas originated from the LLM itself rather than being supplied by the user in the prompt. In this work, we design a framework that measures how much value a person adds on top of what a language model could have easily produced by itself. The method requires no training or labeled data and never scores the document's surface text, insulating it from stylistic confounders. Instead, it extracts the document's content at increasing levels of granularity, uses an LLM to reconstruct the document from each partial representation, and compares these reconstructions with those produced from the task description alone. We call this framework Value Over Language Model (VOLM), which measures a document's contribution relative to a replacement-level document that an LLM could produce from the task description alone. We evaluate VOLM with a specific instantiation of this framework across three domains: news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays. VOLM separates human-authored documents from matched LLM-generated documents produced from generic task descriptions, while remaining substantially invariant to content-preserving transformations, including LLM-based reconstruction and round-trip translation. We further find that increasingly constrained content extractors reduce residual differences between LLM-generated and humanized text, demonstrating the importance of disentangling informational content from stylistic variation. We hope these results encourage further work on specialized instantiations of the framework and on assessing human contributions in LLM-assisted writing more generally.

The rapid proliferation of LLMs has further heightened the need to develop dependable AI-generated text detection, especially beyond English. Nevertheless, current benchmarks pay little attention to Indic languages and test detectors in idealized settings that do not represent the real world. We present a generalized benchmark for AI-generated text detection in Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil, which we call IndicDetect, designed to assess the robustness of detectors under realistic distribution shifts. IndicDetect comprises highly curated human-written texts matched with LLM-generated counterparts across various domains and generators, and systematically evaluates detectors in the presence of domain shift, generator shift, and adversarial perturbation. Using a single and repeatable evaluation scheme, we evaluate a wide range of statistical and neural detectors. We find substantial robustness failures: supervised neural detectors perform well in-distribution, while training-free methods degrade considerably under unseen generators and adversarial attacks. The severity of these failures varies across languages, with Hindi exhibiting the largest overall degradation under adversarial perturbations. These results highlight that the primary weakness of existing detectors in Indic settings lies in their robustness, not in their peak accuracy. IndicDetect provides standard data splits, an evaluation protocol, and baselines to establish a robust, language-aware foundation for AI-generated text detection in Indic scripts.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made AI-generated text detection increasingly critical. Existing zero-shot detectors assume that more token-level evidence leads to more reliable detection. However, our empirical study challenges this consensus: fewer tokens sometimes work better, retaining only 40% can yield optimal performance, yet this benefit is not universal. Using the Entropy Gap Score (EGS), we introduce top-$k$ cumulative probability filtering as a diagnostic probe. Across three representative settings, filtering exhibits strikingly different behaviors. We analyze EGS via typical set theory and quantify its dynamics through entropy calibration and distribution analysis. We find that filtering helps for weak source LMs, where low-entropy tokens are harmful, but fails for strong source LMs, where they are not notably harmful. Our work provides the first systematic analysis showing that some tokens are not merely uninformative but systematically harmful due to entropy miscalibration, revealing a two-sided trade-off in token-level detection.

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text (Andre et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2023; Opara, 2024; Soto et al., 2024; Li and Zhang, 2025; Selvioglu et al., 2025). But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent "stylometric footprint": a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human- written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that "AI text" is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has increased the need for reliable detection of LLM-generated text, especially in realistic Chinese scenarios involving human-written text (HWT), LLM-generated text (LGT), and LLM-refined text (HLT). This paper presents EVIL-Detect, a multi-signal ensemble framework with conflict-aware fusion for NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 6. The system integrates edit-extent regression, zero-shot likelihood-contrast signals, lexical statistics, and conservative text rules. With calibrated decision boundaries and conflict-aware integration, our system improves robustness under strong out-of-distribution shifts, achieving a macro-F1 score of 0.8888 and ranking first in the official evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/bbbbhrrrr/evildetect.

As LLM-generated content becomes more sophisticated, detection systems for distinguishing those texts from human-written text must operate at scale while handling diverse writing styles, domains, languages, and generator models. Input-only encoder detectors are suitable for practical deployment setting, but standard binary classification supplies only the class label and does not explicitly organize the substantial variation within either class. We propose MD-ProTector, which represents each class with multiple trainable reference vectors in the encoder embedding space, referred to as prototypes. These prototypes provide separate decision boundaries for different groups of texts within the same class. However, adding multiple prototypes alone does not determine which variation each prototype should represent. MD-ProTector addresses this problem with Prototype Positioning loss, which separates class-level structure from the within-class variation that differentiates individual prototypes. Evaluated across five settings from three large-scale benchmarks covering domain, generator, language, and adversarial variation, MD-ProTector achieves the highest AvgRec on MAGE CDCM and RAID and the highest AUROC and lowest FPR95 on RAID among the compared encoder-based methods.

Detecting machine-generated disinformation on social media is increasingly difficult as large language models (LLMs) make it easier to generate and rewrite misleading content at scale. Static benchmark evaluations, measuring detector performance on fixed held-out datasets, do not capture how detectors behave when posts are deliberately transformed to evade classification. This paper adapts the Build it, Break it, Fix it framework into Build it, Break it, Repeat (BiBiR): iterative sessions designed to stress-test detectors' robustness under iterative adversarial conditions, evaluating whether models remain reliable when disinformation posts are systematically transformed to evade classification. Across five iterations, the findings show that the best adversarial breakers' transformations came from a combination of back-translation and LLM persona-based rewriting, with the best performing technique achieving a 95% label flip rate (LFR), whilst still preserving the meaning of the original posts. The best builders' model was a triplet contrastive model with a dynamic anchor switching (DASS) architecture, which achieved an average accuracy of 72.68%, outperforming the strong baseline (a fine-tuned e5-small-LoRA) by 15 percentage points on the most robust set of breakers' adversarial attacks. The results demonstrate that an iterative framework best exposes detector weaknesses and pushes robustness improvements; however, it may still require semantic preservation analysis to distinguish valid adversarial evasion from transformations that changed the original disinformation claims' meaning.

Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 64 to 80% (Pangram/GPTZero). Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p<0.001); elevated scores track long-token and Academic Word List density, not authorship intent alone. After Undetectable AI humanization, evasion is near-total: fewer than 4% of AI-labeled rewrites remain flagged (post-humanization detection rate <4%; FNR >96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent and convincing text at scale, creating growing risks for misinformation dissemination, educational misuse, and platform governance. These concerns make robust detection of machine-generated text increasingly necessary. Recent zero-shot detectors mainly exploit probability-based statistical discrepancies, but they do not explicitly account for the training process of LLMs, which leaves a distinct generation mechanism insufficiently modeled and limits detection robustness. To address this issue, we propose EchoPrompt, a training-free detector based on latent prompt restoration. Our key intuition is that machine-generated text is typically produced conditioned on an upstream prompt, and this hidden dependency can be partially reactivated by prepending a unified generic prefix. Specifically, EchoPrompt restores a generic assistant-response context, measures the induced likelihood gain with an instruction-tuned model, calibrates it against the corresponding base model, and aggregates the resulting differences into a score that quantifies latent prompt dependency. Extensive experiments show that EchoPrompt achieves state-of-the-art performance among zero-shot detectors while maintaining strong robustness across challenging evaluation settings.

Large language models can now generate fluent and complete stories, yet many outputs still feel formulaic and unnatural because of cliches, over-explanation, linear causal progression, and stereotyped endings, an immediately recognizable AI flavor. Existing detection and evaluation methods often stop at source labels or holistic scores, while revision methods typically target predefined issues through localized edits, limiting their ability to support multiple plausible revision strategies or guide story-wide changes in information release, causal organization, and ending treatment. We introduce CraftAlign, a framework that aligns AI stories with the craft of human storytelling by both assessing Human/AI writing patterns and providing revision guidance. CraftAlign comprises two learned modules and an inference-time guidance pipeline. A feature estimator built on Qwen3.5-9B predicts 304 explicit writing features spanning style and narrative. A class-conditional energy model scores the resulting feature configuration against Human and AI writing patterns, conditioning on the original writing prompt when available. At inference time, CraftAlign applies schema-valid structured perturbations, selects changes that move the feature configuration toward the Human writing pattern, and converts them into natural-language guidance for a separate editor to rewrite the full story. Experiments show that CraftAlign accurately distinguishes Human and AI writing patterns and that its guidance outperforms revision baselines across editors and in a human study.

The rapid spread of large language models (LLMs) across the web raises concerns about misinformation, academic integrity, automated content manipulation, and risks to vulnerable online communities. Existing transformer-based detectors, such as GPT-Sentinel, show promise but struggle to generalize to diverse model outputs and paraphrasing attacks, limiting their role in building trustworthy web ecosystems. This work introduces DeBERTa-Sentinel, a responsible AI-generated text detection framework leveraging DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention to capture subtle structural irregularities in synthetic content. A central design principle is transparency: unlike black-box commercial detectors, DeBERTa-Sentinel exposes token-level explanations of its decisions, enabling affected stakeholders journalists, educators, and platform trust and safety teams to audit, challenge, and contextualize detection outcomes. Using the GLC-AIText dataset of 28,057 human and LLM-generated samples (GPT, LLaMA, and Claude) with a 60-20-20 split, DeBERTa-Sentinel achieves 98.21% validation accuracy and surpasses the RoBERTa-Sentinel baseline from NeurIPS 2025, achieving 97.53% test accuracy, 95.89% precision, 99.33% recall, and 99.53% ROC-AUC, and maintaining a 0.665% false negative rate. The model's interpretability reveals linguistic markers such as academic phrasing and formal transitions associated with synthetic text, directly supporting stakeholder needs for verifiable, auditable content-authenticity decisions. By advancing responsible detection methods that reduce bias and enhance explainability, DeBERTa-Sentinel promotes trustworthy, ethical, and human-centric AI systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Galileo-Galili/HUMAN-VS-AI-TEXT-DETECTION.