mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

StyloAI: Distinguishing AI-Generated Content with Stylometric Analysis

arXiv 2405.10129 ↗First posted 16 May 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 17

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) capable of generating realistic texts and images has sparked ethical concerns across various sectors. In response, researchers in academia and industry are actively exploring methods to distinguish AI-generated content from human-authored material. However, a crucial question remains: What are the unique characteristics of AI-generated text? Addressing this gap, this study proposes StyloAI, a data-driven model that uses 31 stylometric features to identify AI-generated texts by applying a Random Forest classifier on two multi-domain datasets. StyloAI achieves accuracy rates of 81% and 98% on the test set of the AuTextification dataset and the Education dataset, respectively. This approach surpasses the performance of existing state-of-the-art models and provides valuable insights into the differences between AI-generated and human-authored texts.

Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2024.

Builds on

7 of 10 references.

References · 7

  1. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
  2. 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
  3. 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 59
  4. 2023Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detectioncited by 41
  5. 2023Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domainscited by 31
  6. 2023Classification of Human- and AI-Generated Texts: Investigating Features for ChatGPTcited by 19
  7. 2023An Empirical Study of AI Generated Text Detection Toolscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 8; 2026: 9.

17 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025A Lightweight Approach to Detection of AI-Generated Texts Using Stylometric Featurescited by 5
  2. 2025Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysiscited by 3
  3. 2025AI-generated Text Detection: A Multifaceted Approach to Binary and Multiclass Classificationcited by 3
  4. 2026Why AI-Generated Text Detection Fails: Evidence from Explainable AI Beyond Benchmark Accuracycited by 2
  5. 2025SKDU at De-Factify 4.0: Natural Language Features for AI-Generated Text-Detectioncited by 1
  6. 2026Stylometry Analysis of Human and Machine Text for Academic Integritycited by 1
  7. 2026Assessing Deanonymization Risks with Stylometry-Assisted LLM Agentcited by 1
  8. 2025IntegrityAI at GenAI Detection Task 2: Detecting Machine-Generated Academic Essays in English and Arabic Using ELECTRA and Stylometrycited by 0
  9. 2025StylOch at PAN: Gradient-Boosted Trees with Frequency-Based Stylometric Featurescited by 0
  10. 2025AINL-Eval 2025 Shared Task: Detection of AI-Generated Scientific Abstracts in Russiancited by 0
  11. 2025RedNote-Vibe: A Dataset for Capturing Temporal Dynamics of AI-Generated Text in Lifestyle Social Mediacited by 0
  12. 2026Explaining Generalization of AI-Generated Text Detectors Through Linguistic Analysiscited by 0
5 more
  1. 2026Beyond Pattern Matching: Seven Cross-Domain Techniques for Prompt Injection Detectioncited by 0
  2. 2026A Systematic Analysis of Linguistic Features in AI-Generated Text Detection Across Domains and Modelscited by 0
  3. 2026Relational Over-Regularization: Graph-Based AI-Generated Text Detection via Sentence Transition Deviationcited by 0
  4. 2026AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Notcited by 0
  5. 2026Detecting and Guiding LLM-Generated Korean Poetry with Interpretable Form-level Featurescited by 0