Automatic detection of Gen-AI texts: A comparative framework of neural models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18750v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:55:07 GMT
• Title: Automatic detection of Gen-AI texts: A comparative framework of neural models
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates the problem of AI generated text detection through the design, implementation, and evaluation of multiple machine learning based detectors.<n>Four neural architectures are developed and analyzed: a Multilayer Perceptron, a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network, a MobileNet-based CNN, and a Transformer model.<n>Results show that supervised detectors achieve more stable and robust performance than commercial tools across different languages and domains.
• Score: 8.423689720638846
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models has significantly increased the difficulty of distinguishing between human-written and AI generated texts, raising critical issues across academic, editorial, and social domains. This paper investigates the problem of AI generated text detection through the design, implementation, and comparative evaluation of multiple machine learning based detectors. Four neural architectures are developed and analyzed: a Multilayer Perceptron, a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network, a MobileNet-based CNN, and a Transformer model. The proposed models are benchmarked against widely used online detectors, including ZeroGPT, GPTZero, QuillBot, Originality.AI, Sapling, IsGen, Rephrase, and Writer. Experiments are conducted on the COLING Multilingual Dataset, considering both English and Italian configurations, as well as on an original thematic dataset focused on Art and Mental Health. Results show that supervised detectors achieve more stable and robust performance than commercial tools across different languages and domains, highlighting key strengths and limitations of current detection strategies.

Related papers

• Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection [23.358538027776877]
  This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art AI-generated text detection techniques.<n>It evaluates their effectiveness through the Counter Turing Test (CT2) shared tasks.<n>The top-performing teams leveraged fine-tuned transformer models, ensemble learning, and hybrid detection approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T06:01:17Z)
• Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors [68.7723287560362]
  We show that generated text from base models is often judged overwhelmingly human, whereas text generated by their instruction-tuned counterparts is not.<n>We propose Humanization by Iterative Paraphrasing (HIP), a detector-agnostic pipeline that minimally fine-tunes a base model into a paraphraser and applies it iteratively.<n>Our findings suggest that current detectors are tracking artifacts of instruction tuning and local context more than any in notion of machine-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T08:13:12Z)
• Why AI-Generated Text Detection Fails: Evidence from Explainable AI Beyond Benchmark Accuracy [0.9169660430821364]
  We propose a framework that integrates linguistic feature engineering, machine learning, and explainable AI techniques.<n>Using SHAP-based explanations, we show that the most influential features differ markedly between datasets.<n>We believe that this knowledge helps build AI detectors that are robust across different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T12:46:15Z)
• DependencyAI: Detecting AI Generated Text through Dependency Parsing [10.075606234222963]
  We introduce DependencyAI, a simple and interpretable approach for detecting AI-generated text.<n>Our method achieves competitive performance across monolingual, multi-generator, and multilingual settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T11:42:28Z)
• Human Texts Are Outliers: Detecting LLM-generated Texts via Out-of-distribution Detection [71.59834293521074]
  We develop a framework to distinguish between human-authored and machine-generated text.<n>Our method achieves 98.3% AUROC and AUPR with only 8.9% FPR95 on DeepFake dataset.<n>Code, pretrained weights, and demo will be released.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T08:14:45Z)
• Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentation [3.088244520495001]
  A sentence-level sequence labeling model proposed to detect transitions between human- and AI-generated text.<n>Our model combines the state-of-the-art pre-trained Transformer models, incorporating Neural Networks (NN) and Conditional Random Fields (CRFs)<n>The evaluation is performed on two publicly available benchmark datasets containing collaborative human and AI-generated texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T14:22:55Z)
• Assessing Classical Machine Learning and Transformer-based Approaches for Detecting AI-Generated Research Text [0.0]
  Machine learning approaches can distinguish ChatGPT-3.5-generated texts from human-written texts.<n>DistilBERT achieves the overall best performance, while Logistic Regression and BERT-Custom offer solid, balanced alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T04:36:21Z)
• Where are we in audio deepfake detection? A systematic analysis over generative and detection models [59.09338266364506]
  SONAR is a synthetic AI-Audio Detection Framework and Benchmark.<n>It provides a comprehensive evaluation for distinguishing cutting-edge AI-synthesized auditory content.<n>It is the first framework to uniformly benchmark AI-audio detection across both traditional and foundation model-based detection systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T01:03:42Z)
• Detecting Machine-Generated Long-Form Content with Latent-Space Variables [54.07946647012579]
  Existing zero-shot detectors primarily focus on token-level distributions, which are vulnerable to real-world domain shifts. We propose a more robust method that incorporates abstract elements, such as event transitions, as key deciding factors to detect machine versus human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:42:09Z)
• Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifier [0.14732811715354457]
  We present Pangram Text, a transformer-based neural network trained to distinguish text written by large language models from text written by humans. We show that Pangram Text is not biased against nonnative English speakers and generalizes to domains and models unseen during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T17:13:41Z)
• On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection [76.55825911221434]
  We argue that as machine-generated text approximates human-like quality, the sample size needed for detection bounds increases. We test various state-of-the-art text generators, including GPT-2, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama, Llama-2-13B-Chat-HF, and Llama-2-70B-Chat-HF, against detectors, including oBERTa-Large/Base-Detector, GPTZero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T17:47:39Z)
• How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN [63.79300884115027]
  Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? We introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-18T04:07:09Z)

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.