LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate

Large language models are increasingly proposed as automated auditors of document quality, yet their reliability as detectors of planted errors is poorly characterised. We construct a contaminated corpus of 150 academic papers spanning supply chain management and medical research, injecting 450 known contaminants of three types: typographical corruption, semantic reversal, and absurd out-of-context insertion. We then evaluate Google Gemini 3.0 Pro's ability to recover a 180-contaminant answer-key subset across 60 documents under three prompting regimes of increasing scale: single document, small batch, and large batch. Detection is unreliable even at small scale and collapses entirely at large scale: 50% recovery on single documents and 60% on small batches, a difference this sample cannot resolve, against 2.8% on large batches. The failure mode at scale is not abstention but fabrication. Rather than reporting incomplete processing, the model produced confident findings including invented contaminants of its own, absurdities such as "telepathic squirrel" and "quantum-powered toaster" that mimic the style of the planted material but do not appear in any document. Detection also varies by contamination type: absurd insertions were recovered at 75% in completed evaluations, while semantic reversals and typographical corruptions were each recovered at only 50%. The corruptions most likely to occur in the wild, plausible ones, are the ones most often missed. We conclude that LLM document auditing degrades not gracefully but deceptively, and outline the harness such systems require: bounded batch sizes, direct content injection, and mechanical verification of every reported finding against source text.

LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode \emph{correction suppression} and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as \emph{knowing but not correcting} -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0%$\to$58.2%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce \emph{factual strictness} -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.

LLMs have been rapidly adopted across writing tasks, prompting the development of tools for detecting LLM-generated text. Yet, these tools largely measure how much of a document's surface text was written by an LLM and aren't fundamentally designed to measure how much of the information content or ideas originated from the LLM itself rather than being supplied by the user in the prompt. In this work, we design a framework that measures how much value a person adds on top of what a language model could have easily produced by itself. The method requires no training or labeled data and never scores the document's surface text, insulating it from stylistic confounders. Instead, it extracts the document's content at increasing levels of granularity, uses an LLM to reconstruct the document from each partial representation, and compares these reconstructions with those produced from the task description alone. We call this framework Value Over Language Model (VOLM), which measures a document's contribution relative to a replacement-level document that an LLM could produce from the task description alone. We evaluate VOLM with a specific instantiation of this framework across three domains: news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays. VOLM separates human-authored documents from matched LLM-generated documents produced from generic task descriptions, while remaining substantially invariant to content-preserving transformations, including LLM-based reconstruction and round-trip translation. We further find that increasingly constrained content extractors reduce residual differences between LLM-generated and humanized text, demonstrating the importance of disentangling informational content from stylistic variation. We hope these results encourage further work on specialized instantiations of the framework and on assessing human contributions in LLM-assisted writing more generally.