Detecting GPT-Assisted Writing Using Interpretable Stylometric Features

This paper replicates and extends the system used in the AuTexTification shared task for authorship attribution of machine-generated texts. Exact replication was not possible because of differences in data splits, model availability, and implementation details, which we document as a case study in reproducibility. We tested newer multilingual language models (mDeBERTa-v3-base, Qwen, mGPT) and added 26 document-level stylometric features, using ablation, permutation importance, and SHAP analysis to assess feature influence. A single shared configuration was applied to both English and Spanish across Subtask 1 and Subtask 2. Averaged over three random seeds, the shared multilingual configuration performs comparably to or better than the language-specific baseline, with the clearest gains on model attribution (Subtask 2). The additional stylometric features yield small improvements, led by lexical diversity, but their contribution falls within seed variance once predictability-based probabilities are included, which remain the dominant signal. The study also shows that clear documentation is important for reliable replication and fair comparison of systems.

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.

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.