Aug 2026· Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research· 0 citations· 27 references
TL;DR
This systematic literature review synthesizes peer-reviewed and high-quality studies published between 2023 and 2026 on AI-obfuscated, AI-refined, and humanized text and suggests that AI-text detection should be treated as one supportive signal rather than a stand-alone judgment, particularly in high-stakes academic or professional contexts.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are now widely used to draft, revise, paraphrase, and polish text, making the detection of AI-generated writing increasingly difficult. This systematic literature review synthesizes peer-reviewed and high-quality studies published between 2023 and 2026 on AI-obfuscated, AI-refined, and humanized text. From 1,002 records, 26 primary studies were retained after screening and quality assessment. The review organizes the literature through a seven-dimensional taxonomy. Overall, the evidence shows that many detectors perform well on clean or in-distribution AI-text but become less reliable when the text is paraphrased, humanized, or collaboratively edited. The review also highlights recurring fairness concerns, especially for non-native English writers, and finds that current benchmarks often do not fully capture realistic mixed-authorship and adversarial settings. These results suggest that AI-text detection should be treated as one supportive signal rather than a stand-alone judgment, particularly in high-stakes academic or professional contexts.
It is concluded that AI-text detection, in its current form, cannot serve as a sole, dispositive basis for academic-integrity decisions, and a set of institutional and technical recommendations are proposed that better address the underlying problem than detector accuracy alone can.
A. Kumar, Ayush Kumar, Danish Maqbool Chopan· International Journal of Res...· 0 citations
The review shows that current detection approaches face several challenges, including a shortage of suitable datasets, ambiguous labels for human–AI collaborative text, insufficient coverage of generative models, limited generalization, and inadequate interpretability.
Jie Wang· Artificial Intelligence and...· 0 citations
Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct and should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.
Jonathan A. Karr, Grigorii Khvatskii, Hua Ting et al.· 0 citations
This editorial highlights the urgent need for human centric approach to AI detection, advocating for strategies that prioritise human-AI collaboration over sole reliance on fallible automated systems.
Plagiarism-detection and AI-detection tools are now widely used in academic publishing. These systems were introduced to support research integrity by helping journals identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, and concerns related to undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI). When used appropriatel...
The proposed Recursive Self-Correction approach raises model performance from a Political Neutrality Likert scale baseline of 2.14 to 4.56, averaged across all models, demonstrating effective inference-time mitigation of political bias in LLM-generated summaries.
Tejaswi V. Panchagnula, Bruce Coburn, Bryce J. Dietrich et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.