Saad El Dine Ahmed

Mervat Abassy, Kareem Elozeiri, Alexander Aziz et al.

The ease of access to large language models (LLMs) has enabled a widespread of machine-generated texts, and now it is often hard to tell whether a piece of text was human-written or machine-generated. This raises concerns about potential misuse, particularly within educational and academic domains. Thus, it is important to develop practical systems that can automate the process. Here, we present one such system, LLM-DetectAIve, designed for fine-grained detection. Unlike most previous work on machine-generated text detection, which focused on binary classification, LLM-DetectAIve supports four categories: (i) human-written, (ii) machine-generated, (iii) machine-written, then machine-humanized, and (iv) human-written, then machine-polished. Category (iii) aims to detect attempts to obfuscate the fact that a text was machine-generated, while category (iv) looks for cases where the LLM was used to polish a human-written text, which is typically acceptable in academic writing, but not in education. Our experiments show that LLM-DetectAIve can effectively identify the above four categories, which makes it a potentially useful tool in education, academia, and other domains. LLM-DetectAIve is publicly accessible at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/LLM-DetectAIve. The video describing our system is available at https://youtu.be/E8eT_bE7k8c.

Ahmed Sharshar, Hosam Elgendy, Saad El Dine Ahmed et al.

Dark humor often relies on subtle cultural nuances and implicit cues that require contextual reasoning to interpret, posing safety challenges that current static benchmarks fail to capture. To address this, we introduce a novel multimodal, multilingual benchmark for detecting and understanding harmful and offensive humor. Our manually curated dataset comprises 3,000 texts and 6,000 images in English and Arabic, alongside 1,200 videos that span English, Arabic, and language-independent (universal) contexts. Unlike standard toxicity datasets, we enforce a strict annotation guideline: distinguishing Safe jokes from Harmful ones, with the latter further classified into Explicit (overt) and Implicit (Covert) categories to probe deep reasoning. We systematically evaluate state-of-the-art (SOTA) open and closed-source models across all modalities. Our findings reveal that closed-source models significantly outperform open-source ones, with a notable difference in performance between the English and Arabic languages in both, underscoring the critical need for culturally grounded, reasoning-aware safety alignment. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

Yuxia Wang, Rui Xing, Jonibek Mansurov et al.

Prior studies have shown that distinguishing text generated by large language models (LLMs) from human-written one is highly challenging, and often no better than random guessing. To verify the generalizability of this finding across languages and domains, we perform an extensive case study to identify the upper bound of human detection accuracy. Across 16 datasets covering 9 languages and 9 domains, 19 annotators achieved an average detection accuracy of 87.6\%, thus challenging previous conclusions. We find that major gaps between human and machine text lie in concreteness, cultural nuances, and diversity. Prompting by explicitly explaining the distinctions in the prompts can partially bridge the gaps in over 50\% of the cases. However, we also find that humans do not always prefer human-written text, particularly when they cannot clearly identify its source.