The local news landscape, a vital source of reliable information for 28 million Americans, faces a growing threat from Pink Slime Journalism, a low-quality, auto-generated articles that mimic legitimate local reporting. Detecting these deceptive articles requires a fine-grained analysis of their linguistic, stylistic, and lexical characteristics. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive study to uncover the distinguishing patterns of Pink Slime content and propose detection strategies based on these insights. Beyond traditional generation methods, we highlight a new adversarial vector: modifications through large language models (LLMs). Our findings reveal that even consumer-accessible LLMs can significantly undermine existing detection systems, reducing their performance by up to 40% in F1-score. To counter this threat, we introduce a robust learning framework specifically designed to resist LLM-based adversarial attacks and adapt to the evolving landscape of automated pink slime journalism, and showed and improvement by up to 27%.

With the increasing reliance on LLMs as research agents, distinguishing between LLM and human-generated ideas has become crucial for understanding the cognitive nuances of LLMs’ research capabilities. While detecting LLM-generated text has been extensively studied, distinguishing human vs LLM-generated *scientific ideas* remains an unexplored area. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art (SOTA) machine learning models to differentiate between human and LLM-generated ideas, particularly after successive paraphrasing stages. Our findings highlight the challenges SOTA models face in source attribution, with detection performance declining by an average of 25.4% after five consecutive paraphrasing stages. Additionally, we demonstrate that incorporating the research problem as contextual information improves detection performance by up to 2.97%. Notably, our analysis reveals that detection algorithms struggle significantly when ideas are paraphrased into a simplified, non-expert style, contributing the most to the erosion of distinguishable LLM signatures.