The misuse of large language models (LLMs) poses potential risks, motivating the development of machine-generated text (MGT) detection. Existing literature primarily concentrates on binary, document-level detection, thereby neglecting texts that are composed jointly by human and LLM contributions. Hence, this paper explores the possibility of fine-grained MGT detection under human-AI coauthoring.We suggest fine-grained detectors can pave pathways toward coauthored text detection with a numeric AI ratio.Specifically, we propose a dataset, HACo-Det, which produces human-AI coauthored texts via an automatic pipeline with word-level attribution labels. We retrofit seven prevailing document-level detectors to generalize them to word-level detection.Then we evaluate these detectors on HACo-Det on both word- and sentence-level detection tasks.Empirical results show that metric-based methods struggle to conduct fine-grained detection with a 0.462 average F1 score, while finetuned models show superior performance and better generalization across domains. However, we argue that fine-grained co-authored text detection is far from solved.We further analyze factors influencing performance, e.g., context window, and highlight the limitations of current methods, pointing to potential avenues for improvement.

Evidence-enhanced detectors present remarkable abilities in identifying malicious social text.However, the rise of large language models (LLMs) brings potential risks of evidence pollution to confuse detectors.This paper explores potential manipulation scenarios including basic pollution, and rephrasing or generating evidence by LLMs.To mitigate the negative impact, we propose three defense strategies from the data and model sides, including machine-generated text detection, a mixture of experts, and parameter updating.Extensive experiments on four malicious social text detection tasks with ten datasets illustrate that evidence pollution significantly compromises detectors, where the generating strategy causes up to a 14.4% performance drop.Meanwhile, the defense strategies could mitigate evidence pollution, but they faced limitations for practical employment.Further analysis illustrates that polluted evidence (i) is of high quality, evaluated by metrics and humans; (ii) would compromise the model calibration, increasing expected calibration error up to 21.6%; and (iii) could be integrated to amplify the negative impact, especially for encoder-based LMs, where the accuracy drops by 21.8%.

Misinformation detectors often rely on superficial cues (i.e., shortcuts) that correlate with misinformation in training data but fail to generalize to the diverse and evolving nature of real-world misinformation. This issue is exacerbated by large language models (LLMs), which can easily generate convincing misinformation using simple prompts. We introduce TruthOverTricks, a unified evaluation paradigm for measuring shortcut learning in misinformation detection. TruthOverTricks categorizes shortcut behaviors into intrinsic shortcut induction and extrinsic shortcut injection, and evaluates seven representative detectors across 14 popular benchmarks, along with two new factual misinformation datasets, NQ-Misinfo and Streaming-Misinfo. Empirical results reveal that existing detectors suffer severe performance degradation when exposed to both naturally occurring and adversarially crafted shortcuts. To address this, we propose the Shortcut Mitigation Framework (SMF), an LLM-augmented data augmentation framework that mitigates shortcut reliance through paraphrasing, factual summarization, and sentiment normalization. SMF consistently enhances robustness across 16 benchmarks, forcing models to rely on deeper semantic understanding rather than shortcut cues.