Likelihood Is Not Authorship: Can We Reliably Measure Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Writing?

As LLMs increasingly assist scientific writing and peer review, detecting who wrote the text is no longer sufficient: we need to determine who contributed the underlying insight. We introduce Insight Provenance, the task of identifying whether a review insight originates from a human, an LLM, or their hybrid contribution. We construct InsightProv-v0 from 4,057 scientific papers and 12,660 human reviews, simulating different levels of LLM involvement with GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek and annotating provenance at the sentence level. We show that strong performance on raw data can be misleading, as models exploit linguistic and textual-authorship shortcuts that degrade substantially under progressively debiased evaluation. We therefore propose a two-stage adversarial framework that suppresses shortcut signals while preserving provenance-relevant information. Beyond detection, extensive analyses reveal what makes intellectual authorship identifiable: paper grounding and neighboring review context provide complementary provenance signals, while human, hybrid, and AI insights systematically differ in their information sources and failure modes. Most strikingly, AI insights predominantly remain close to generic or paper-provided information, whereas human insights more often introduce external knowledge and independent judgment. These findings suggest that while wording can be rewritten by an LLM, the provenance of an idea leaves a deeper and more persistent signal.

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.

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.