Detecting AI-generated text (AIGT) remains challenging because existing approaches rely on token-level statistical signals or independent stylometric features, causing them to overfit to specific generators and fail under distribution shift. We identify a structural signal at the sentence-pair level: LLMs produce inter-sentence transition variance that deviates from human writing through inflated variance driven by recurring similarity bursts at paragraph boundaries and templated transitions. We formalize this as Relational Over-Regularization (ROR) and validate it across four benchmarks (p < 0.001). To exploit this signal, we propose the Cross-Source Stylometric Fingerprint Graph (CSFG), a graph-based framework that encodes positional, sequential, semantic, and transition deviation signals as learnable GNN edge features. We emphasize that the core contribution is this relational problem formulation itself, not the GNN architecture - CSFG is one concrete instantiation for operationalizing ROR. The per-edge signed deviation 𝛿_ij operationalizes ROR without hand-crafted thresholds and acts as a false-positive calibrator. CSFG achieves 97.14% accuracy under binary detection, outperforming the strongest graph-based baseline by 11.14 pp, with a false-positive rate of 1.57% and robust generalization to unseen LLMs in the inflated-variance regime; detection degrades for generators whose transition variance falls at or below the human baseline.

AI text detectors are increasingly employed in academic settings, but it remains unclear whether their outputs reflect AI authorship itself or broader linguistic features associated with polished academic English. Previous studies have reported high false-positive rates (FPRs) for non-native English writing, but population-level comparisons confound authorship with differences in topic, domain, and writing style. Professional editing provides a useful setting for examining this issue because it changes the linguistic form of manuscripts while preserving authorship and content. We examined 135,389 document pairs from a professional English editing service (2018–2025), comprising non-native manuscripts and their native-edited versions, to assess how editing affects detector responses controlling for content and authorship. For the 13 AI text detectors, FPRs for human-written texts varied widely, from 0.0% to 100.0%. Responses varied across detectors: the same edits increased AI scores in some detectors but decreased them in others. Notably, score changes correlated with the extent of editing. The findings identify professional editing style as a key confounding variable in AI detector outputs, rather than establishing a full separation of text origin from linguistic style, raising concerns about fairness and reliability in academic settings.

As large language models (LLMs) generate more human-like texts, concerns about the side effects of AI-generated texts (AIGT) have grown. So, researchers have developed methods for detecting AIGT. However, two challenges remain. First, the performance of detecting black-box LLMs is low because existing models focus on probabilistic features. Second, most AIGT detectors have been tested on a single-candidate setting, which assumes that we know the origin of an AIGT and which may deviate from the real-world scenario. To resolve these challenges, we propose DART, which consists of four steps: rephrasing, semantic parsing, scoring, and multiclass classification. We conducted three experiments to test the performance of DART. The experimental result shows that DART can discriminate multiple black-box LLMs without probabilistic features and the origin of AIGT.