arXiv subjects

Andrea McGlinchey

Publications and source records attributed to Andrea McGlinchey.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Detecting undisclosed LLM-generated content in parliamentary texts

In this paper, we evaluate the extent of undisclosed LLM-generated content in texts from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. In many areas, such as in journalism or in academic writing, there are often requirements to clearly disclose whether AI tools, such as LLMs, have been used. In the case of parliamentary texts, the guidelines on disclosure of AI use are more vague. However, in order to maintain transparency and retain public trust, it is generally recommended that parliamentarians should state whether or not they have used AI when writing texts, such as parliamentary motions. Here, we train an interpretable (glass-box) text classifier using pre-LLM parliamentary texts and LLM-generated versions of such texts. We then apply the classifier to a test set containing recent parliamentary texts, finding a steady increase in undisclosed LLM use, in both parliaments, from 2022 onwards.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Interpretable Text Classification Applied to the Detection of LLM-generated Creative Writing

We consider the problem of distinguishing human-written creative fiction (excerpts from novels) from similar text generated by an LLM. Our results show that, while human observers perform poorly (near chance levels) on this binary classification task, a variety of machine-learning models achieve accuracy in the range 0.93 - 0.98 over a previously unseen test set, even using only short samples and single-token (unigram) features. We therefore employ an inherently interpretable (linear) classifier (with a test accuracy of 0.98), in order to elucidate the underlying reasons for this high accuracy. In our analysis, we identify specific unigram features indicative of LLM-generated text, one of the most important being that the LLM tends to use a larger variety of synonyms, thereby skewing the probability distributions in a manner that is easy to detect for a machine learning classifier, yet very difficult for a human observer. Four additional explanation categories were also identified, namely, temporal drift, Americanisms, foreign language usage, and colloquialisms. As identification of the AI-generated text depends on a constellation of such features, the classification appears robust, and therefore not easy to circumvent by malicious actors intent on misrepresenting AI-generated text as human work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Cat and Mouse -- Can Fake Text Generation Outpace Detector Systems?

Large language models can produce convincing "fake text" in domains such as academic writing, product reviews, and political news. Many approaches have been investigated for the detection of artificially generated text. While this may seem to presage an endless "arms race", we note that newer LLMs use ever more parameters, training data, and energy, while relatively simple classifiers demonstrate a good level of detection accuracy with modest resources. To approach the question of whether the models' ability to beat the detectors may therefore reach a plateau, we examine the ability of statistical classifiers to identify "fake text" in the style of classical detective fiction. Over a 0.5 version increase, we found that Gemini showed an increased ability to generate deceptive text, while GPT did not. This suggests that reliable detection of fake text may remain feasible even for ever-larger models, though new model architectures may improve their deceptiveness

cs.CL↗