ArticleScientific reports2026
AI detection in Italian essays through different text representations and adversarial robustness evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of various text representation methods in distinguishing between AI-generated and human-written content, using a corpus of 1000 Italian essays. Four techniques were employed for text representation: Text Features, Most Frequent Words (MFWs), Correspondence Analysis (CA), and a fine-tuned Large Language Model (LLM). Machine learning models, including Random Forests, Elastic-net, and Support Vector Machine, were applied to these representations. The study achieved high classification accuracy, with Text Features performing exceptionally well. However, adversarial tactics revealed vulnerabilities in models based on Text Features and MFWs, while approaches based on CA and LLM demonstrated greater resilience. CA in particular proved to be the best compromise between parsimony in the number of predictors, accuracy and robustness to targeted text-modification attacks. The research also focused on the explainability of the results, highlighting significant differences between AI- and human-written texts, including sentence structure and lexical choices. Ethical considerations, particularly in educational settings, were emphasized, along with the need for further cross-linguistic studies and diverse domain datasets. This research provides valuable insights into the challenges and potential solutions in AI text detection, emphasising the importance of balancing accuracy with interpretability and robustness against adversarial attacks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.