# TMR AI detector accuracy test, and its paragraph problem

Source: https://toolbenchmarks.com/ai-detectors/tmr/  
Tested: 30 October 2026. Publisher: Tool Benchmarks. Data licence: CC BY 4.0.

> TMR flagged 83.3% of human texts as AI in our test, including all 101 human texts that had more than one paragraph. When we removed the line breaks from the same texts, it flagged 25.7% of them. Its high catch rate on AI text (83.3%) comes from the same quirk, so its verdicts say more about formatting than authorship.

Verdict: Unusable as published. It reacts to paragraph breaks, flagging every multi-paragraph text we gave it, human or AI.

| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Catches AI text | 83.3% (420 of 504) |
| Flags human text | 83.3% (105 of 126) |
| Catches humanized AI text | 81.0% |
| AUROC | 0.605 |
| Catches Claude Fable 5.1 | 88.1% |
| Catches Claude Haiku 5.5 | 81.0% |
| Catches Claude Opus 5.5 | 83.3% |
| Catches Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 81.0% |
| Flags human text: Academic abstracts | 16.0% |
| Flags human text: Q&A answers | 100.0% |
| Flags human text: Encyclopedia articles | 100.0% |
| Flags human text: Fiction | 100.0% |
| Flags human text: News reports | 100.0% |

## What TMR is

TMR, short for Target Mining RoBERTa, is a RoBERTa-base model trained on the RAID benchmark with a technique that retrains on human texts the model previously got wrong. Its model card describes it as built to keep false positives low. We used the threshold of 0.5 from the card.

## Results as published

TMR caught 83.3% of AI texts, more than any other detector, and flagged 83.3% of human texts. It flagged every human news report, encyclopedia article, forum answer and fiction passage in the test split. The only human writing it mostly passed was academic abstracts, which it flagged at 16.0%.

Length looked like a factor at first. It flagged 100.0% of human texts of 300 words or more and 63.2% of those under 200 words. Longer texts in our set usually have more paragraphs, though, and that turned out to be the cause.

## The paragraph test

Abstracts are mostly a single paragraph, so we scored every test text a second time with its line breaks replaced by spaces. Nothing else changed. TMR's false positive rate on human texts fell from 83.3% to 23.8%, and on the 101 multi-paragraph human texts it fell from 100.0% to 25.7%. Its catch rate on AI text fell from 83.3% to 38.7%.

So most of TMR's "AI" verdicts were responses to line breaks. The [paragraph break guide](/guides/paragraph-breaks-change-ai-detector-results/) compares all seven detectors on the same test.

## Questions people ask

### Is the TMR AI detector accurate?

No. It caught 83.3% of AI texts and flagged 83.3% of human texts, a balanced accuracy of 50.0%, which is what flagging everything would score.

### Why does TMR flag human writing?

In our test it flagged all 101 human texts that contained paragraph breaks. With the breaks replaced by spaces, it flagged 26 of those 101. Its training data may have had little text with line breaks, but we cannot see that from outside.

### Would TMR work on single-paragraph text?

Better, though not well. With line breaks removed it flagged 23.8% of all human texts and caught 38.7% of AI texts.