analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates that Large Language Models struggle to reliably distinguish their own outputs from human-authored text in short-answer contexts but perform better on programming tasks and longer reflective essays. The study highlights critical limitations where prompt framing and verbosity significantly degrade detection accuracy, suggesting LLMs are not yet robust standalone tools for academic integrity verification. For the AI community, these findings underscore the inherent ambiguity between synthetic and natural language patterns that complicates automated content moderation in educational settings.
Distinguishing Artificial from Authentic: Evaluating LLMs for Detecting LLM-Generated Content
arXiv:2607.20446v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by students to generate natural language responses and program code, there is growing interest in whether LLMs themselves can be used to distinguish AI-generated work from human-authored submissions. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which LLMs can detect their own generated content across multiple educational task types, including programming exercises, reflective writing, and short-answer questions. Using authentic student responses and multiple variants of LLM-generated answers, we evaluate detection performance under different prompting strategies and output formats. Our study addresses three research questions: (1) how accurately LLMs can identify their own outputs across task domains, (2) how detection effectiveness is influenced by factors such as prompt design, response length, and task type, and (3) what characteristics of LLM-generated responses contribute to successful or failed detection. Our findings show that LLM-based detection is highly task-dependent: detection is substantially more reliable for programming tasks and longer reflective responses, but performs poorly for short-answer questions, where LLMs frequently judge their own outputs as more human-like than authentic student responses. We further find that prompt framing and response verbosity have a pronounced effect on detectability in reflective writing tasks, with relatively minor prompt variations significantly reducing detection accuracy, while programming-related detection is more robust to prompt changes. Together, these results highlight both the potential and the limitations of LLM self-detection in educational settings and suggest caution in relying on LLMs as standalone tools for identifying AI-generated student work.
Abstract:As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by students to generate natural language responses and program code, there is growing interest in whether LLMs themselves can be used to distinguish AI-generated work from human-authored submissions. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which LLMs can detect their own generated content across multiple educational task types, including programming exercises, reflective writing, and short-answer questions. Using authentic student responses and multiple variants of LLM-generated answers, we evaluate detection performance under different prompting strategies and output formats. Our study addresses three research questions: (1) how accurately LLMs can identify their own outputs across task domains, (2) how detection effectiveness is influenced by factors such as prompt design, response length, and task type, and (3) what characteristics of LLM-generated responses contribute to successful or failed detection. Our findings show that LLM-based detection is highly task-dependent: detection is substantially more reliable for programming tasks and longer reflective responses, but performs poorly for short-answer questions, where LLMs frequently judge their own outputs as more human-like than authentic student responses. We further find that prompt framing and response verbosity have a pronounced effect on detectability in reflective writing tasks, with relatively minor prompt variations significantly reducing detection accuracy, while programming-related detection is more robust to prompt changes. Together, these results highlight both the potential and the limitations of LLM self-detection in educational settings and suggest caution in relying on LLMs as standalone tools for identifying AI-generated student work.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2607.20446 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.20446v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20446 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 340 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026
If This Were a Test, How Much Would It Cost?
LessWrong · 16 iun. 2026

Article: Artificial Intelligence-Driven Phishing: How Phishing Technique Is Evolving and Implemented
InfoQ · 8 iun. 2026

Improving CoT Monitorability of Evaluation Awareness via Verbalization Training
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026