Over 30% of new arXiv papers now read as AI-written
A 12,750-paper arXiv study finds ~32% of new submissions score as AI-written, using a false-positive-calibrated detector and detailed field breakdowns.
A study scoring the full text of 12,750 arXiv papers finds that roughly 32% of submissions from 2023 through mid-2026 read as machine-written, peaking near 39% in early 2026. The methodology is built around a key objection to this kind of claim: the detector is calibrated on 2021-2022 pre-ChatGPT papers so its false-positive rate sits at 0.4%, giving a built-in control that shows the rise is real rather than a detector artifact. Scoring used version-1 PDFs and full body text rather than abstracts, since abstracts were found to understate the signal substantially.
Field-level results vary widely, from computer science at about 65% to mathematics at roughly 0.7%. The authors are explicit that math's low score is ambiguous: heavily notation- and proof-driven prose may simply be out-of-distribution for the detector, so it can't distinguish low adoption from reduced sensitivity in that register. Other limitations include a thin per-field control sample (200 papers each) and incomplete coverage of the actual mix of generators authors use, meaning the reported prevalence is likely a lower bound.
For engineers and researchers tracking AI's footprint in scientific writing, the study offers a rare methodologically grounded prevalence estimate rather than a raw detector percentage — but it also underscores that a flag indicates machine-like phrasing, not proof of authorship or academic misconduct.