Measuring Artifact Reliance in Machine-Generated Text Detectors

arXiv:2610.13583v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 apparent ease is a side effect of how the documents were put together. A logistic regression using 27 superficial features reached 0.833-0.997 macro-F1, and on the three arXiv subsets it outperformed every detector we evaluate with F1-scores 0.951-0.997. The strongest cue to the detector is the PDF extraction artifact: human texts retain their original line breaks, whereas generated texts are extracted as a single block of prose. This cue, together with three other formatting features, tell the classes apart at 0.996 AUC. To distinguish benchmarks that contain such a signal from detectors that rely on one, we introduce format counterfactuals: just re-wrapping a machine-written abstract without changing a single word reverses 20-27% of a public detector's correct decisions. Normalizing formatting before training reduces the generalization gap from 0.32 to 0.22. On format-clean benchmarks, it also raises out-of-domain macro-F1 from 0.33 to 0.65 for detectors trained on artifact-containing subsets.