EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Text
Katherine Thai, Bradley Emi, Elyas Masrour, Mohit Iyyer
Abstract
A significant proportion of queries to large language models ask them to edit userprovided text, rather than generate new text from scratch. While previous work focuses on detecting fully AI-generated text, we demonstrate that AI-edited text is distinguishable from human-written and AI-generated text. First, we propose using lightweight similarity metrics to quantify the magnitude of AI editing present in a text given the original human-written text and validate these metrics with human annotators. Using these similarity metrics as intermediate supervision, we then train EDITLENS, a regression model that predicts the amount of AI editing present within a text. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on both binary (F1=94.7%) and ternary (F1=90.4%) classification tasks in distinguishing human, AI, and mixed writing. Not only do we show that AI-edited text can be detected, but also that the degree of change made by AI to human writing can be detected, which has implications for authorship attribution, education, and policy. Finally, as a case study, we use our model to analyze the effects of AI-edits applied by Grammarly, a popular writing assistance tool. To encourage further research, we commit to publicly releasing our dataset and models. github.com/pangramlabs/EditLens
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 829fafd6-5fe9-49e3-9559-9144d0d06738Cited by top-tier papers3
- AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosedJenna Russell, Marzena Karpinska, Destiny Akinode, James Zhou et al.ACL 2026 · 9 citations
- Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not EnforceableRounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Proactive AI as a Catalyst for Creativity? Balancing Human Agency and AI Contribution in Collaborative Story WritingYiwen Yin, Mingze Wu, Ruijie Huang, Xin Tong et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on13
- QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMsTim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, Luke ZettlemoyerNeurIPS 2023 · 5,863 citations
- DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability CurvatureEric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning et al.ICML 2023 · 988 citations
- A Watermark for Large Language ModelsJohn Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz et al.ICML 2023 · 854 citations
- Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defenseKalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 657 citations
- Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability CurvatureGuangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang et al.ICLR 2024 · 311 citations
Related papers
- Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA RewritingChengzhi Mao, Carl Vondrick, Hao Wang, Junfeng YangICLR 2024 · 66 citations
- Enhancing LLM Text Detection with Retrieved Contexts and Logits Distribution ConsistencyZhaoheng Huang, Yutao Zhu, Ji-Rong Wen, Zhicheng DouEMNLP 2025
- Can You Make It Sound Like You? Post-Editing LLM-Generated Text for Personal StyleConnor Baumler, Calvin Bao, Huy Nghiem, Xinchen Yang et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
- HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI CoauthoringZhixiong Su, Yichen Wang, Herun Wan, Zhaohan Zhang et al.ACL 2025 · 10 citations
- MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the WildYafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi et al.ACL 2024 · 44 citations
