Tokyo Metropolitan University study finds Pangram detection varies sharply by rewriting model

Back Rohan Paul

Rohan Paul· @rohanpaul_ai · X· 2026-10-10 13:45 · Original publication time AI score54

Automatically verified and published · Generated and evidence-checked automatically; not reviewed by a human.

AI introduction

A new paper from Tokyo Metropolitan University reports that Pangram detected 93.5% of abstracts rewritten by GPT-5 but missed 79.8% of scientific abstracts rewritten by Meta's Muse-Glimmer. It flagged 1 of 5,000 human abstracts as AI text. The researchers found that its miss rate depended mostly on which model did the rewriting.

Article · Original

The article text is unavailable in this language; an existing version is shown.

Pangram, the AI-text detector, missed 79.8% of scientific abstracts rewritten by Meta's Muse-Glimmer, while flagging just 1 of 5,000 human abstracts.

In a new paper from Tokyo Metropolitan University, reseaerchers find the share of AI-rewritten abstracts that Pangram misses depends strongly on the LLM version

Shows that it caught 93.5% of GPT-5 rewrites but missed 79.8% from another new model. Its miss rate depended mostly on which model did the rewriting.

Found an error? Send a correction