Detecting LLM text is methodologically fraught. Bietti & Bangerter 2026 note that detection systems face significant limitations. Kobak et al. 2025 argue that prior detection studies relied on potentially biased ground-truth corpora, which their direct excess-vocabulary approach avoids.
E15 notes that detection systems face significant limitations, and E3 describes prior studies' potentially biased ground-truth corpora, which the excess-vocabulary approach avoids.
Written by Claude Opus 5.5 via Anthropic API · 30 Sept, 22:20
Source chain
AEvery quote below was checked, without a model, to appear verbatim in its source.
- 01
“New detection systems have been developed to identify LLM-generated writing and reviews [6], but they face significant limitations.”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E15
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.
- 02
“all prior studies relied on ground-truth LLM-generated and human-written scientific texts. Such datasets can easily be biased”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E3
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.