Preprint: Poster: Did I Just Browse A Website Written by LLMs?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13933v2
• Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 23:55:04 GMT
• Title: Preprint: Poster: Did I Just Browse A Website Written by LLMs?
• Abstract summary: "LLM-dominant" content is generated by large language models (LLMs) with little human input.<n>We propose a highly reliable, scalable pipeline that classifies entire websites.<n>We find LLM-dominant sites are growing in prevalence and rank highly in search results.
• Score: 4.183993881260522
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Increasingly, web content is automatically generated by large language models (LLMs) with little human input. We call this "LLM-dominant" content. Since LLMs plagiarize and hallucinate, LLM-dominant content can be unreliable and unethical. Yet, websites rarely disclose such content, and human readers struggle to distinguish it. Thus, we must develop reliable detectors for LLM-dominant content. However, state-of-the-art LLM detectors are inaccurate on web content, because web content has low positive rates, complex markup, and diverse genres, instead of clean, prose-like benchmark data SoTA detectors are optimized for. We propose a highly reliable, scalable pipeline that classifies entire websites. Instead of naively classifying text extracted from each page, we classify each site based on an LLM text detector's outputs of multiple prose-like pages to boost accuracies. We train and evaluate our detector by collecting 2 distinct ground truth datasets totaling 120 sites, and obtain 100% accuracies testing across them. In the wild, we detect a sizable portion of sites as LLM-dominant among 10k sites in search engine results and 10k in Common Crawl archives. We find LLM-dominant sites are growing in prevalence and rank highly in search results, raising questions about their impact on end users and the overall Web ecosystem.

Related papers

• Identifying AI Web Scrapers Using Canary Tokens [4.364248691212873]
  Large-scale web scraping to feed large language models (LLMs) can affect site stability and raise legal, privacy, or ethics concerns.<n>This paper proposes a novel technique for accurately and automatically inferring LLM-related scrapers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T15:53:57Z)
• DeGenTWeb: A First Look at LLM-dominant Websites [4.7586268097101945]
  We describe DeGenTWeb which systematically identifies LLM-dominant websites.<n>We show how to adapt detectors of LLM-generated text for use on web pages.<n>We find that LLM-dominant sites are highly prevalent both in data from Common Crawl and in Bing's search results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T17:54:35Z)
• Beyond a Single Extractor: Re-thinking HTML-to-Text Extraction for LLM Pretraining [78.36592534300839]
  We show that for structured content such as tables and code blocks, extractor choice can significantly impact downstream task performance.<n>This suggests a simple intervention: by taking a Union over different extractors, we can increase the token yield of DCLM-Baseline by up to 71%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T06:41:57Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• MixLM: High-Throughput and Effective LLM Ranking via Text-Embedding Mix-Interaction [28.43509939465397]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at capturing semantic nuances.<n>They suffer from high computational overhead under industrial latency and throughput requirements.<n>We propose MixLM, a novel LLM-based ranking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T21:23:04Z)
• Demo: Statistically Significant Results On Biases and Errors of LLMs Do Not Guarantee Generalizable Results [10.858989372235657]
  We develop an infrastructure that automatically generates queries to probe LLMs and 2) evaluates answers to these queries using multiple LLM-as-a-judge setups and prompts.<n>As a baseline study, we perform two case studies on inter-LLM agreement and the impact of varying the answering and evaluation LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T04:20:33Z)
• Decoding Latent Attack Surfaces in LLMs: Prompt Injection via HTML in Web Summarization [1.3537117504260623]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into web-based systems for content summarization.<n>This study explores how non-visible HTML elements can be exploited to embed adversarial instructions without altering the visible content of a webpage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-06T21:05:18Z)
• Evaluating AI capabilities in detecting conspiracy theories on YouTube [0.1474723404975345]
  This study explores the use of open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs), both text-only and multimodal, for identifying conspiracy theory videos on YouTube.<n>We evaluate a variety of LLMs in a zero-shot setting and compare their performance to a fine-tuned RoBERTa baseline.<n>Results show that text-based LLMs achieve high recall but lower precision, leading to increased false positives.<n>Multimodal models lag behind their text-only counterparts, indicating limited benefits from visual data integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T15:44:36Z)
• Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
  We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy.<n>We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z)
• Zero-Shot Statistical Tests for LLM-Generated Text Detection using Finite Sample Concentration Inequalities [13.657259851747126]
  Verifying provenance of content is crucial to the function of many organizations, e.g., educational institutions, social media platforms, firms, etc.<n>This problem is becoming increasingly challenging as text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes almost indistinguishable from human-generated content.<n>In this paper, we answer the following question: Given a piece of text, can we identify whether it was produced by a particular LLM or not?<n>We model LLM-generated text as a sequential process with complete dependence on history. We then design zero-shot statistical tests to distinguish between text generated by two different known sets of LLM
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T23:51:43Z)
• SV-RAG: LoRA-Contextualizing Adaptation of MLLMs for Long Document Understanding [103.69014172427026]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently shown great progress in text-rich image understanding, yet they still struggle with complex, multi-page visually-rich documents.<n>We present a novel framework named **S**elf-**V**isual **R**etrieval-**A**ugmented **G**eneration (SV-RAG) which can broaden horizons of any MLLM to support long-document understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T02:09:01Z)
• Which LLMs are Difficult to Detect? A Detailed Analysis of Potential Factors Contributing to Difficulties in LLM Text Detection [43.66875548677324]
  We train AI-generated (AIG) text classifiers using the LibAUC library for training classifiers with imbalanced datasets.<n>Our results in the Deepfake Text dataset show that AIG-text detection varies across domains, with scientific writing being relatively challenging.<n>In the Rewritten Ivy Panda dataset focusing on student essays, we find that the OpenAI family of LLMs was substantially difficult for our classifiers to distinguish from human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T21:42:37Z)
• Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement [51.601916604301685]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate content that can undermine trust in online discourse.<n>Current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of real-world scenarios like human-LLM collaboration.<n>To move beyond binary classification and address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm for detecting LLM-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T08:14:10Z)
• Learning to Rewrite: Generalized LLM-Generated Text Detection [19.9477991969521]
  Large language models (LLMs) present significant risks when used to generate non-factual content and spread disinformation at scale.<n>We introduce Learning2Rewrite, a novel framework for detecting AI-generated text with exceptional generalization to unseen domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T05:53:39Z)
• Web2Code: A Large-scale Webpage-to-Code Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal LLMs [112.89665642941814]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown impressive success across modalities such as image, video, and audio. Current MLLMs are surprisingly poor at understanding webpage screenshots and generating their corresponding HTML code. We propose a benchmark consisting of a new large-scale webpage-to-code dataset for instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:59:46Z)
• The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scale [30.955171096569618]
  FineWeb is a 15-trillion token dataset derived from 96 Common Crawl snapshots. FineWeb-Edu is a 1.3-trillion token collection of educational text filtered from FineWeb.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T13:50:56Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• What Evidence Do Language Models Find Convincing? [94.90663008214918]
  We build a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts. We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T02:15:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.