Today’s MT digest highlights work at the intersection of machine-generated text, evaluation, and human-likeness, with a strong emphasis on understanding how closely model outputs align with human language and reasoning. Across these papers, common themes include improved detection and assessment frameworks, more nuanced linguistic evaluation, and methods that aim to make generated text clearer, more faithful, and more informative.

Hidden Human-Like Nature of Machine-Generated Texts: Theory and Detection Enhancement

Machine-generated texts (MGTs) produced by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prevalent across various applications, while their potential misuse in fake news propagation and phishing has raised serious concerns, highlighting the need for MGT detection. Existing paragraph-level detection methods commonly treat MGTs as entirely machine-like, overlooking the hidden human-like nature of machine-generated texts: even fully machine-generated texts may contain spans that are highly consistent with human writing. To this end, we first reveal the existence of such hidden human-like spans, and then theoretically analyze their impact on detection. Our analysis shows that these spans increase the sentence complexity for detection, thereby making MGT detection intrinsically harder. Based on this finding, we propose a model-agnostic stacked enhancement framework that improves existing detectors by reducing the influence of hidden human-like spans. Specifically, we model span-level retention decisions as a latent-variable problem and instantiate the optimization with a hard-EM-inspired procedure, where the detector iteratively filters confidently human-like subsequences and refines itself on the remaining text. Extensive experiments across various LLMs and practical scenarios demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently enhances existing detectors. Notably, the framework can also work in a training-free manner, offering flexibility and scalability for practical deployment.

NLG Evaluation: Past, Present, Future

Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation has changed dramatically since 1990, and will continue to evolve in the future. In 1990, when NLG had close ties to linguistics, there was very little formal experimental evaluation in the modern sense. In 2026, when NLG is closely linked to machine learning, experimental evaluation is expected and indeed fundamental to research. Many evaluation techniques were developed over this period, including most recently LLM-as-Judge. I expect NLG evaluation will continue to evolve in the future. In particular, impact, qualitative, and safety evaluation will become more important as large numbers of people routinely use NLG technology.

How Human-Like Are Large Language Models? A Register-Aware Linguistic Evaluation Framework

While factual correctness and task-performance have been in focus of Large Language Model (LLM) research for a long time, the fundamental question of how human-like generated texts are on a linguistic level has been underexplored. From a corpus-linguistic perspective, language production is inherently context-dependent, with distinct communicative contexts giving rise to differences in frequencies and co-occurrence patterns of linguistic features. A text failing to adhere to these patterns can be content-wise correct, but still be unfavorable to human readers. In this work, we propose a context-aware evaluation framework in which human-likeness is assessed using a two-sample problem between the linguistic feature distribution of a human reference corpus for a given register and a corresponding LLM-generated corpus. We implement this framework using the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and the 67 lexico-grammatical features introduced by Biber, which are commonly applied in corpus linguistics. In our experiments, we compare seven instruction-tuned, open-source models across five English-language datasets spanning distinct registers against a human baseline. While across all tested setups, LLMs deviate from the human baseline, which models are closest to human language depends on the register and is not dictated by model size.

ETCHR: Editing To Clarify and Harness Reasoning

Multimodal Large Language Models have advanced visual reasoning, yet a purely textual chain of thought remains a bottleneck for questions that require fine-grained focus or view transformations. The ''think with images'' paradigm narrows this gap, but existing approaches are either constrained by fixed predefined toolkits or produce noisy intermediate images from unified multimodal methods. We pursue a third option: using a dedicated image editing model and decouple it with an understanding model. However, off-the-shelf image editors fail as reasoning assistants with two complementary gaps: a language-side gap, where editors trained as passive instruction-followers cannot map an abstract question to an appropriate visual transformation, and a generation-side gap, where edit correctness degrades as reasoning depth grows. Guided by this analysis, we introduce ETCHR (Editing To Clarify and Harness Reasoning), a question-conditioned, reasoning-aware image editor decoupled from the downstream understanding model and trained with a two-stage recipe targeted at the two gaps: Reasoning Imitation via supervised fine-tuning on edit trajectories, followed by Reasoning Enhancement with VLM-derived rewards for edit correctness and downstream reasoning accuracy. Since the editor is decoupled, ETCHR plugs into different open- and closed-source MLLMs in a training-free manner. Across five task families (fine-grained perception, chart understanding, logic reasoning, jigsaw restoration, and 3D understanding), ETCHR raises average Pass@1 from 55.95 to 60.77 (+4.82) with Qwen3-VL-8B, from 65.08 to 70.55 (+5.47) with Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite, and from 76.55 to 81.16 (+4.61) with the 1T-parameter MoE model Kimi K2.5.

ChartFI: Benchmarking Faithfulness and Insightfulness of Chart Descriptions from Multimodal Large Language Models

Chart descriptions are essential for accessibility, cross-modal retrieval, and assisting readers in extracting insights from complex visualizations. As multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly adopted for automated chart description generation, a critical question arises: how faithfully and insightfully do these models actually describe charts? Current benchmarks fall short on two fronts: existing datasets consist of simple, homogeneous charts paired with shallow, fact-enumerating descriptions; and prevailing metrics fail to capture the multi-faceted nature of description quality. To address these gaps, we present the Chart Faithfulness and Insightfulness Benchmark (ChartFI-Bench). We first summarize four dimensions that characterize high-quality chart descriptions: factual accuracy, salient feature emphasis, domain-informed guidance, and chart-text complementarity. Guided by these dimensions, we construct a high-quality benchmark comprising 896 chart-description pairs, which feature visually complex charts and semantically rich descriptions. Furthermore, we design four aligned evaluation metrics -- Faithfulness, Coverage, Informativeness, and Acuity -- to systematically assess the quality of descriptions across these dimensions. Experiments conducted on mainstream MLLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework and reveal common weaknesses among existing models.