Team DACTYL at PAN 2026: Bayesian Data Mixing and Empirical X-risk Minimization for AI-text Detection

Existing research shows that AI-generated text detection classifiers achieve strong in-distribution (ID) performance but do not maintain the same performance on out-of-distribution (OOD) texts, suggesting overfitting to dataset-specific features. However, combining different training datasets doesn't always improve performance and, in some cases, can even encourage shortcut learning. To address this issue, we fine-tune BERT-tiny models with Bayesian classification heads to select texts across three different datasets to use as a consolidated training set. We trained three different classifiers: fine-tuned DeBERTa-V3-large and ModernBERT-large classifiers via empirical X-risk minimization, and an MCGrad model that calibrates the predictions from the ModernBERT-large classifier. The DeBERTa-V3-large-large classifier achieves a mean score of 0.882 on the PAN 2026 test set across five metrics: AUROC, $F_1$, C@1, Brier score, and $F_{0.5u}$. ModernBERT-large achieves a score of 0.96 while MCGrad achieves the best score of the three with a mean score of 0.974, ranking second on the leaderboard. Our results highlight that careful dataset curation can lead to strong OOD performance. We release our ModernBERT-large and DeBERTa-V3-large models at https://huggingface.co/collections/ShantanuT01/panclef-2026 .

DACTYL: Diverse Adversarial Corpus of Texts Yielded from Large Language Models

Existing AIG (AI-generated) text detectors struggle in real-world settings despite succeeding in internal testing, suggesting that they may not be robust enough. We rigorously examine the machine-learning procedure to build these detectors to address this. Most current AIG text detection datasets focus on zero-shot generations, but little work has been done on few-shot or one-shot generations, where LLMs are given human texts as an example. In response, we introduce the Diverse Adversarial Corpus of Texts Yielded from Language models (DACTYL), a challenging AIG text detection dataset focusing on one-shot/few-shot generations. We also include texts from domain-specific continued-pre-trained (CPT) language models, where we fully train all parameters using a memory-efficient optimization approach. Many existing AIG text detectors struggle significantly on our dataset, indicating a potential vulnerability to one-shot/few-shot and CPT-generated texts. We also train our own classifiers using two approaches: standard binary cross-entropy (BCE) optimization and a more recent approach, deep X-risk optimization (DXO). While BCE-trained classifiers marginally outperform DXO classifiers on the DACTYL test set, the latter excels on out-of-distribution (OOD) texts. In our mock deployment scenario in student essay detection with an OOD student essay dataset, the best DXO classifier outscored the best BCE-trained classifier by 50.56 macro-F1 score points at the lowest false positive rates for both. Our results indicate that DXO classifiers generalize better without overfitting to the test set. Our experiments highlight several areas of improvement for AIG text detectors.

Which LLMs are Difficult to Detect? A Detailed Analysis of Potential Factors Contributing to Difficulties in LLM Text Detection

As LLMs increase in accessibility, LLM-generated texts have proliferated across several fields, such as scientific, academic, and creative writing. However, LLMs are not created equally; they may have different architectures and training datasets. Thus, some LLMs may be more challenging to detect than others. Using two datasets spanning four total writing domains, we train AI-generated (AIG) text classifiers using the LibAUC library - a deep learning library for training classifiers with imbalanced datasets. Our results in the Deepfake Text dataset show that AIG-text detection varies across domains, with scientific writing being relatively challenging. In the Rewritten Ivy Panda (RIP) dataset focusing on student essays, we find that the OpenAI family of LLMs was substantially difficult for our classifiers to distinguish from human texts. Additionally, we explore possible factors that could explain the difficulties in detecting OpenAI-generated texts.