Measuring, Localizing, and Ablating Alignment Signatures in LLMs

Detecting AI-generated text is an important but challenging problem. Existing likelihood-based detection methods are often sensitive to content complexity and may exhibit unstable performance. In this paper, our key insight is that modern Large Language Models (LLMs) undergo alignment (including fine-tuning and preference tuning), leaving a measurable distributional imprint. We theoretically derive this imprint by abstracting the alignment process as a sequence of constrained optimization steps, showing that the log-likelihood ratio can naturally decompose into implicit instructional biases and preference rewards. We refer to this quantity as the Alignment Imprint. Furthermore, to mitigate the instability in high-entropy regions, we introduce Log-likelihood Alignment Preference Discrepancy (LAPD), a standardized information-weighted statistic based on alignment imprint. We provide statistical guarantee that alignment-based statistics dominate Fast-DetectGPT in performance. We also theoretically show that LAPD strictly improves the unweighted alignment scores when the aligned and base models are close in distribution. Extensive experiments show that LAPD achieves an improvement 45.82% relative to the strongest existing baselines, yielding large and consistent gains across all settings.

Reproducing an empirical NLP study used to take weeks. Given the released data and a modern agentic-research harness, we redo every experiment of a recent ACL,2026 study on personal-style post-editing of LLM drafts -- and add three new ones -- with the human investigator acting only as a reviewer-in-the-loop. We reproduce all seven preregistered hypotheses and recover the paper's headline correlation between perceived self-similarity and embedding-measured self-similarity to three decimal places ($r{=}{+}0.244$, $p{<}10^{-8}$, $n{=}648$). Under a leakage-free held-out protocol, GPT-5.5 and Claude,Opus,4.7 close $71$--$75\,\%$ of the style gap to the same-author ceiling on $324$ paired tasks, against $24\,\%$ for the human post-edit, and beat the human post-edit on \sim$$80\,\% of tasks. We then frame the same data as an AI-text detection arms race. A leave-authors-out linear SVM on LUAR-MUD embeddings reaches AUC $0.93$--$1.00$ across approaches; six diagnostics show that GPT-5.5 detection is mostly a length confound while Opus detection is a genuine stylistic signature. Given $T{=}20$ feedback iterations against the frozen detector, an Opus agent flips two of five held-out test mimics to the human half-space and shrinks every margin by an order of magnitude. With moderate effort against a known detector, a frontier LLM can already efficiently lower its own AI-detection probability. All code, $648$ mimic drafts, trained detectors, diagnostics, and adversarial trajectories are released.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.