arXiv (All)
open access
Measuring Artifact Reliance in Machine-Generated Text Detectors
Detectors of machine-generated text score almost perfectly on scientific-literature benchmarks, implying we can reliably distinguish with these detectors human and machine-generated documents. We looked at ten scientific-document subsets from six popular resources, and on several of them that appare
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?#100654
- PaddleOCR-VL-1.6: Expanding the Frontier of Document Parsing with Under-Optimized Region Refinement and Progressive Post-Training#255555
- Team DArgk at the 2026 ELOQUENT lab for evaluating generative language model quality: Residuals of Humanity: AI Detection Evasion via GRPO Fine-Tuning#1036904
- When Auditors Fabricate: Batch-Size Degradation and Confident Hallucination in LLM Detection of Planted Document Contamination#1069935
- How Do Document Parsers Break? Auditing Structural Vulnerability in Document Intelligence#1011106
Record · ID 1297935
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive