mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Why AI-Generated Text Detection Fails: Evidence from Explainable AI Beyond Benchmark Accuracy

arXiv 2603.23146 ↗First posted 24 Mar 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has made the detection of AI-Generated text a pressing and complex challenge. Although many detection systems report high benchmark accuracy, their reliability in real-world settings remains uncertain, and their interpretability is often unexplored. In this work, we investigate whether contemporary detectors genuinely identify machine authorship or merely exploit dataset-specific artefacts. We propose an interpretable detection framework that integrates linguistic feature engineering, machine learning, and explainable AI techniques. When evaluated on two prominent benchmark corpora, namely PAN CLEF 2025 and COLING 2025, our model trained on 30 linguistic features achieves leaderboard-competitive performance, attaining an F1 score of 0.9734. However, systematic cross-domain and cross-generator evaluation reveals substantial generalisation failure: classifiers that excel in-domain degrade significantly under distribution shift. Using SHAP- based explanations, we show that the most influential features differ markedly between datasets, indicating that detectors often rely on dataset-specific stylistic cues rather than stable signals of machine authorship. Further investigation with in-depth error analysis exposes a fundamental tension in linguistic-feature-based AI text detection: the features that are most discriminative on in-domain data are also the features most susceptible to domain shift, formatting variation, and text-length effects. We believe that this knowledge helps build AI detectors that are robust across different settings. To support replication and practical use, we release an open-source Python package that returns both predictions and instance-level explanations for individual texts.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2026.

Builds on

15 of 38 references.

References · 15

  1. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  2. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  3. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
  4. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
  5. 2023Ghostbuster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Modelscited by 90
  6. 2024SemEval-2024 Task 8: Multidomain, Multimodel and Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 30
  7. 2023Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Surveycited by 28
  8. 2024StyloAI: Distinguishing AI-Generated Content with Stylometric Analysiscited by 17
  9. 2024Exploring the Limitations of Detecting Machine-Generated Textcited by 15
  10. 2024Detecting Machine-Generated Texts: Not Just "AI vs Humans" and Explainability is Complicatedcited by 15
  11. 2025Leveraging Explainable AI for LLM Text Attribution: Differentiating Human-Written and Multiple LLMs-Generated Textcited by 11
  12. 2025GenAI Content Detection Task 1: English and Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detection: AI vs. Humancited by 11
3 more
  1. 2025Linguistic Characteristics of AI-Generated Text: A Surveycited by 7
  2. 2025mdok of KInIT: Robustly Fine-tuned LLM for Binary and Multiclass AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 6
  3. 2025LuxVeri at GenAI Detection Task 1: Inverse Perplexity Weighted Ensemble for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Text across English and Multilingual Contextscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.