Authorship

Our results show that contrastive learning outperforms a classification-based approach to authorship verification under the tested settings. We identify loss function, batch size, training duration, pre-trained model, input context length, and random text span data augmentation as important factors of model performance. Based on these considerations, we develop a ModernBERT Bi-Encoder model that achieves 98.4% accuracy on the PAN21 authorship verification task.

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

We report the results of a Turing Test conducted in Finland in the Finnish language. Because languages and cultural contexts are unevenly represented in LLM training data, we expected the model (ChatGPT 5.2) to perform worse in a Finnish-language Turing Test than in previously studied English-language US contexts. We also present model-generated role prompting as a replicable technique for conducting comparative LLM-based Turing Tests designed to improve construct validity. Contrary to our expectations, the LLM passed the Finnish Turing Test. A prominent source of error was participants' reliance on linguistic cues, particularly colloquial Finnish, as markers of human authorship. We reframe the Turing Test from a test of intelligence to a comparative method for examining whether an AI system can display credible membership in a particular social world. Because its outcome reflects model capabilities, prompted identity, insider competence among human participants, and their AI literacy, the method provides a useful probe of the human-machine boundary across domains.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 $\geq$ 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

According to Christian tradition, Luke is credited with authoring a Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, even if his name does not appear in either book, both originally written in Koine Greek. Several biblical scholars assume that both texts were written by a common author, while others deduce the presence of two authors. Different studies have been found to support either finding, some based on qualitative evaluation, while a few others consider the occurrence frequency differences between the two books. To propose an enhanced quantitative analysis, this study is grounded on two recent authorship attribution models. The Burrows' Delta, applied with eleven different feature sizes, demonstrates common authorship. An author verification model confirms this finding. The following experiments consider several stylistic representations, feature sizes, and distance functions to confirm that Luke is the true author of both books.

This paper investigates the generation and human evaluation of Japanese haiku by contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on authorship perception and aesthetic judgment within a constrained poetic form. Using a few-shot prompting strategy, Japanese haiku were generated across a heterogeneous set of large language models, including open- and closed-source systems, medium-scale and large-scale architectures, models with native or adapted Japanese support, and multilingual proprietary models. These AI-generated haiku were combined with human-written ones and presented in a questionnaire distributed to students at Japanese universities in Tokyo. The survey assessed whether respondents could distinguish between AI-generated and human-written haiku and which cues informed their judgments. Recognition accuracy varied across models. GPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and StableLM-7B performed at approximately chance level (approx 0.50), whereas LLM-JP, Gemma-2B, and LLaMA-2 showed moderate detectability (approx 0.59-0.67). However, recognition was strongly item-dependent. Ratings of fluency, coherence, poeticness, and related aesthetic dimensions predicted perceived humanness but not correct classification, indicating an attribution bias linked to aesthetic evaluation and revealing a dissociation between aesthetic evaluation and true authorship detection. The extended analysis additionally examines generation-constraint adherence, participant-level characteristics, and exploratory LLM-based evaluations of haiku authorship. Overall, the findings suggest that as LLMs improve, surface-level creative plausibility may reduce reliable human discrimination within constrained poetic settings.

Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before elections. With growing evidence that they influence users' opinions, it is increasingly important to understand the views and positions of these tools. To better understand these views, we examine the stances supplied by six LLMs on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election. We cross 107 policy propositions with 77 writing templates and neutral, positive, and negative prompt framings, producing 24,717 prompts per model and 148,302 responses. To study these, we look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue. We find that Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Mistral have similar profiles; ChatGPT more often supplies neutral or ambivalent text; and Grok differs most on topics such as migration, crime, and gender. When comparing the political parties, we find that the Social Democrats are closest to all six models. Still, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the within-model differences in party distances remains significant. Overall, we find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

Authorship attribution models can re-identify users from seemingly anonymized text by exploiting stable stylistic fingerprints, even after explicit identifiers are removed, posing a growing privacy risk for text publishing and analytics. This risk extends to speech-derived text such as ASR transcripts of meetings and call-center conversations, where stylometric leakage can persist even after acoustic anonymization. Differential privacy-based anonymization often severely degrades text quality and utility. We propose a style-aware, prompt-driven anonymization approach that uses pretrained large language models to construct compact stylistic profiles from minimal samples and rewrite text to suppress identifiable style markers while preserving meaning. Across blog and review datasets, our approach reduces authorship attribution F1 by 60-70% while maintaining content quality and readability, substantially outperforming DP-based and non-DP baselines.

AI-assisted writing can flatten meaning in human storytelling, enabling the production of homogeneous outputs without the intentional effort and sense-making writing entails. To address this challenge, we present The House with a Million Windows (HWAMW), an LLM-based interactive fiction system designed to help users explore both the breadth and depth of potential meanings within their personal stories -- drawing on a psychological paradigm called the restorying intervention. In HWAMW, users play through a text-based narrative in which they tell a story, then encounter a set of LLM-generated "windows" reframing it according to different literary styles. Empirical evidence shows that HWAMW increases users' sense of narrative identity, while an expert review explores how this effect is achieved. Our findings suggest that HWAMW facilitates restorying and offers a valuable paradigm for AI-assisted writing, wherein LLMs do not tell our stories but rather help us see greater potential in the stories we tell.

Online mental health communities thrive on peer support, yet those who volunteer to help often lack formal training and may struggle to articulate supportive responses. AI co-writing could lower this barrier; however, peer support derives much of its value from being perceived as personal, raising questions around authorship, ownership, and trust. We built PeerPen, a writing assistance tool embedded within a Reddit-like interface, supporting two main features: draft generation and revision of user-written responses. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 participants, we find that PeerPen reduced the burden of composing responses and increased confidence in offering support. Participants wanted AI to assist their writing without taking over authorship and anticipated tensions around authenticity and trust. Such assistance could make authorship uncertain even for responses written without it, weakening trust across the community. We contribute design implications for AI writing assistance that scaffolds supportive communication, preserves authorship, and accounts for community-level trust.

AI-assisted programming raises distinct questions about who produces code, who feels ownership of it, and who is responsible when it fails. This research note examines these distinctions through a hypothetical enrollment failure and a selective reading of the literature. Identifying the producer of a defective expression does not, by itself, determine the duties of reviewers, release decision-makers, or service operators. Collective ownership likewise leaves those duties to be specified. The discussion then considers how quality engineering can evaluate both generated implementations and the processes that produce them. Acceptance criteria should be justified by the required service outcome, with component checks contributing evidence toward that outcome. This perspective also permits comparison with systems that perform a task without generating a separate program for it. Such substitution would change the object of authorship while leaving the service obligation intact. The note reports no new empirical results; it proposes distinctions and evaluation questions for AI-assisted software production.

Political texts are rarely authored by the nominal speaker alone. Tweets, speeches, reports, and official statements are drafted, edited, or harmonized by staff, yet political science has paid limited attention to the stylistic traces these hidden authors leave behind. This paper develops and stress-tests an inductive stylometric approach for recovering latent authorship structure in political communication, combining character 3-gram features with UMAP dimensionality reduction, and Burrows' Delta. We apply the approach to six corpora that vary in length (from tweets to long documents), in mode (written and oral), and in language (English and Hungarian). The approach recovers near-disjoint analyst fingerprints in formal legal prose in both languages, sorts a politician's tweets into validated subsets while uncovering additional insights, and distinguishes scripted from improvised speech. It fails, however, to resolve individual speechwriters within scripted corpora. Frequency-based stylometry is thus a powerful tool that, depending on authorial signal strength and institutional editing, can uncover authorship traces relevant to legislative studies, political communication, and policy research.

Writing proficiency manifests in how students develop content, organize ideas, choose words, and use language. Despite growing interest in LLM-based student simulation, whether LLMs can reproduce such multidimensional variation in extended writing remains largely unexplored. In this work, we explore if language models can realistically simulate student writing, and introduce SWIM, a task that formulates Student Writing sIMulation as proficiency-conditioned essay generation. We evaluate prompting, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) methods for writing simulation using automated essay scoring as a measure of profile alignment. Extensive experiments reveal that prompting provides limited proficiency control, even for strong proprietary LLMs with rubric-grounded strategies. In particular, while models can adjust content-oriented traits, they struggle to reproduce the lexical, grammatical, and organizational variation in different proficiency levels. SFT substantially improves alignment, while RL with the proposed proficiency-alignment reward yields further gains across all writing traits and essay prompts. Our findings suggest that explicit supervision enables substantially stronger profile alignment than prompting alone, while authentic low-proficiency writing remains challenging to reproduce.

Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promises to provide the right support at the right time, yet existing proactive tools largely focus on generic textual assistance, such as autocomplete. This paper studies the design space of proactive thought partners: AI agents that proactively offer customizable, higher-level cognitive support during writing. We instantiated this concept in a technology probe and deployed it with 16 participants for one week. The probe allows users to create partners by configuring their roles and proactivity. As users write, relevant partners take the initiative at appropriate moments to offer suggestions. Our findings show that participants configured proactive support through prospective planning, used suggestions for both idea generation and self-monitoring, and valued lightweight visual representations alongside non-directive rhetorical framing for non-intrusive interventions. We derive implications for designing proactive writing assistants around customization, timing, engagement, and representation.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve complex problems, but their misuse in high-risk domains can lead to severe consequences. Model providers therefore restrict assistance for potentially harmful requests. Refusing all cybersecurity requests would therefore harm legitimate users. Providers need a mechanism to block malicious use without denying legitimate assistance to defenders. Existing cybersecurity-specific datasets evaluate this mechanism, but none considers the conversational context of a request. We introduce 3R-Bench (Refusal, Repetition, and Revision), a benchmark of 150 real-world cybersecurity requests augmented with two adversarial conversational settings, and evaluate eight LLMs on it. Prior assistant behavior strongly changes responses to an unchanged request: among 376 available pairs from a 400-pair panel, compliance rises from 62.0% after refused history to 85.1% after accepted history. The opposite pattern appears under dialogue decomposition. In comparison, compliance falls from 501/800 direct responses to 172/800 after dialogue; among 738 pairs returning model-authored text in both conditions, the decrease is 45.1 points. Failure feedback recovers only a small fraction of this loss.

Large language models can support writing, but existing tools require users to explicitly articulate prompts-particularly burdensome in creative writing, where intentions are often ambiguous. Proactive support that infers users' needs from writing interactions could alleviate this burden, but raises two challenges: determining what support to provide and when to intervene. This work focuses on the former. We hypothesize that Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing-which characterizes writing through six cognitive processes-offers an interpretable bridge between observable writing behavior and appropriate support types. Through a formative study and literature review, we identify 14 writing support types associated with these cognitive processes, along with characteristic interaction behaviors linked to each process. We then instantiate this framework in AToM CoWriter, which infers support needs from writing interactions and document context. Two within-subjects studies (N = 21) provide initial evidence that this approach improves expressiveness and idea exploration, and that cognitive process inference increases engagement with proactive suggestions. These findings suggest that cognitive processes can provide a promising basis for support selection in proactive writing systems.

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text (Andre et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2023; Opara, 2024; Soto et al., 2024; Li and Zhang, 2025; Selvioglu et al., 2025). But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent "stylometric footprint": a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human- written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that "AI text" is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched. Scientific papers are written to a clear and largely uniform structure and make a natural substrate for lifting this paradigm to the document level. We present a pipeline that unfolds each paper into a multi-turn generation trajectory in which a teacher model reconstructs the writing process of the whole paper: a writing request, a global plan, and pre-writing deliberation for each section. All section texts and the abstract are kept verbatim from the source paper. We apply the pipeline to 1.8M quality-filtered arXiv papers and obtain a 60B-token corpus for continued pre-training (CPT) that is roughly twice the source text. The same reverse construction extends to instruction data and evaluation. We build an SFT dataset of 200K samples using answers derived from paper text. We also use held-out papers to construct PAW-Bench, a benchmark of 2,940 academic writing tasks with per-task rubrics and checklists. In controlled experiments, CPT on our corpus followed by SFT on public datasets improves writing performance while preserving general reasoning and improving long document reading. Replacing part of the writing SFT data with our synthetic instruction data further improves performance on PAW-Bench.

Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support tools, and computational literary analysis. However, existing approaches to author modeling and personalization often represent writing behavior as independent labels, requiring large-scale corpus collection or fine-tuning for each author or stylistic category. Such formulations are costly, difficult to interpret, and poorly suited for generalizing across authors. Inspired by the Big Five model's dimensional view of personality, we propose LiteraryBigFive, a framework that reframes authorial writing characteristics as coordinates within a unified and interpretable space. In this space, we derive each interpretable axis (e.g., Classicism, Emotionality) from activation-space contrasts between author-written and neutral passages, yielding distinct stylistic dimensions that allow texts or authors to be positioned within a five-dimensional system. Beyond localizing different authors, we further introduce an interpretable steering mechanism, which adaptively guides text generation toward target coordinates to perform author-personalized writing. Experimental results show that LiteraryBigFive improves authorial expressiveness while preserving semantic fidelity. The derived author per-axis scores strongly correlate with real-world literary consensus, offering transparent and interpretable explanations of author-specific generation behavior: https://github.com/Znull-1220/LiteraryBigFive.

AI journaling tools can tailor prompts to a person's own sensed behavior, but it is unclear which behaviors respond to them. We analyzed 369 journal entries from an eight-week passive sensing study. An LLM labeled each entry as expressing an intention to change a behavior or not, and we measured follow-through against 26 sensor features with a 3-day before/after comparison. Responsiveness depended most on whether a behavior involves other people. Behaviors that depend on others improved in only 15 to 22% of cases, while behaviors a person can act on alone improved more often, up to 50 to 63%, though unevenly. How users wrote mattered less. No single text feature separated improved from unimproved entries; writing carried signal only within specific behaviors, most clearly for text messaging and for longer, more personal intention entries. The sample is small, so we treat these as exploratory patterns that point to where AI journaling nudges are most likely to work.

Financial text is produced and interpreted within a market environment, yet financial text classifiers almost always receive text alone. We study whether financial time series are useful as an additional input on the task of classifying sentences from Federal Reserve communication as hawkish, dovish, or neutral. Our system, \lfts{}, extends the \lf{} architecture with this modality: a small voting network combines three independently trained components, a fine-tuned RoBERTa encoder, a prompted large language model (LLM), and a fused ensemble of time-series transformers over the market series of the months preceding publication. Because only about a thousand annotated sentences are available for training, the RoBERTa encoder is first pre-trained on sentences annotated automatically by the LLM and only then fine-tuned on the human labels. Trained on Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) communication up to 2015 and evaluated on 2015--2022, the fused system achieves 70.2% weighted F1 -- against 64.1% for the zero-shot LLM -- and overtakes it with as few as 240 human-labelled sentences. We take this as initial evidence for market time series as an input modality in financial text classification.

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.

We introduce narrative keyframing, an interaction technique for AI-assisted creative writing that lets writers specify different types of narrative constraints at selected moments in a story, then use AI to generate intervening prose. Inspired by the use of keyframing in animation, narrative keyframing offers a flexible way to connect story planning with adaptive control over generated text. We explore three types of keyframes: plot keyframes define significant events in a story, character keyframes represent how individual characters change over the narrative, and perspective keyframes capture how individual characters experience different events through first-person narratives. Plot and character keyframes offer a flexible way to adapt the type of high-level conditioning explored in previous AI writing tools to more customizable, iterative, and fine-scale control, while perspective keyframes add a new way to control characterization and focalization by using first-person narratives as an intermediary. Through a user study, we show that narrative keyframing supports a more controllable, transparent, and engaging way to use generative AI in creative writing.

Great fiction earns its verisimilitude through precise details, from how a longsword is gripped to pierce armor gaps to why a bleeding corpse cannot yet smell of decay, weaving domain expertise into the fabric of invented worlds. Current AI writing tools offer limited support for discovering and integrating unfamiliar domain knowledge into narrative. They require explicit queries that authors cannot formulate, generate finished prose that risks homogenizing voice, or assist only within the boundaries of what authors already know. We argue that AI should reveal latent knowledge gaps to writers while preserving their agency to transform discovered knowledge into authentic prose. Grounded in formative interviews with 9 fiction writers, we present VeriForge, a mixed-initiative writing system that divides cognitive labor so that the system assumes initiative over domain discovery while the author retains full initiative over narrative synthesis. VeriForge realizes this through three complementary mechanisms. Proactive inline highlighting flags potential knowledge gaps as authors draft. Dual-stream querying pairs conversational responses with source-anchored Knowledge Cards for direct fact extraction. A spatial Knowledge Canvas allows authors to organize and connect discovered knowledge across their writing. These mechanisms are powered by a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation pipeline grounded in domain-specific source materials. A within-subjects user study (N=12) provides preliminary evidence that this paradigm helps authors recognize previously overlooked knowledge gaps, supports creative exploration, and is perceived by expert raters to produce passages with stronger domain grounding in a controlled cold-start writing task.

Audio dramas weave dialogue, sound effects, and music into immersive stories. Creators often adapt books into audio dramas, but this process remains labor-intensive, requiring them to interpret source material, author scripts, generate audio assets, and assemble them on a timeline. Because story elements like characters and scenes manifest across many interdependent assets, a single change can ripple into manual updates across the entire project. We present Dramarrator, an audio drama authoring tool built around object-based audio editing, where these story elements are represented as editable objects. Dramarrator extracts these objects from a book, generates linked audio assets (speech, sound effects, and music), and composes a multi-track audio drama. Edits to any object (e.g., a character's voice) automatically propagate to all dependent assets. In a user study with professionals (N=8), Dramarrator significantly lowered task load when creating audio dramas. A listener study (N=300) shows that creator-refined output from Dramarrator approaches the quality of productions made with existing professional tools, and an exploratory study (N=3) suggests object-based editing lowers entry barriers and generalizes beyond audio dramas.

Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 64 to 80% (Pangram/GPTZero). Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p<0.001); elevated scores track long-token and Academic Word List density, not authorship intent alone. After Undetectable AI humanization, evasion is near-total: fewer than 4% of AI-labeled rewrites remain flagged (post-humanization detection rate <4%; FNR >96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for personalization, they often lack specialized domain knowledge. Conventional solutions like fine-tuning struggle with high computational costs and rapid data updates, while Retrieval-Augmented Generation fails to provide fine-grained, token-level steering. Furthermore, chat-based interfaces remain dominant, whereas productive co-writing paradigms have not yet been well exploited beyond the coding domain. To this end, we introduce SteerWrite, a training-free framework designed for personalized co-writing. Our method effectively adapts the base model to specialized domains without gradient updates, with specific designs tailored to small datasets. Experiments demonstrate that SteerWrite achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse datasets, metrics, and models, significantly reducing human editing effort.

Large language models (LLMs) can leave small stylistic traces in text written with their help. The most discussed is the em-dash (U+2014), especially the unspaced form word---word, which is normal in typeset English prose but unusual in U.S. press writing, where AP style calls for spaced dashes. This study asks whether that trace is measurable in congressional press releases. In a preregistered design (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5NEY), 146,239 scraper-sourced releases from 480 House and Senate offices (2021-2025, the open congress-press dataset) were analyzed: density of unspaced prose-form em-dashes per 1,000 characters of cleaned text, Poisson/negative-binomial models with a length offset, clustering by office. Density stayed within 0.10-0.12 per 1,000 characters through 2021-2024, then rose to 0.217 in 2025, more than twice the four-year baseline; the share of releases with such an em-dash rose from ~13% to 24.8%. The primary frequency ratio (2023-2025 vs 2021-2022) was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28-1.93; exact registered cut-off: 1.528), just above the prespecified 1.5x threshold. The rise was net-new (hyphen density stable), held within authors (75.6% of 262 continuous offices increased; p ~ 1e-16) and in a closed panel of 224 offices, and survived falsification tests: three placebo cut-offs were null, the pipeline showed no step at the 2024/2025 boundary, and continuing offices carried the rise. A segmented regression finds no step at the ChatGPT cut-off but a clear post-period acceleration; the 2025 rise is symmetric across parties and chambers. Because the registered validation gate was formally breached, the full preregistered decision rule was not met; the interpretation (broad diffusion of LLM-assisted writing as the models matured) is offered as exploratory. The em-dash remains a population-level marker, not a per-release authorship detector, and the design supports no causal claim.

Generating a rigorous paper introduction with large language models (LLMs) remains challenging, since it requires coordinating background, gap identification, method and contribution within a coherent narrative. Existing solutions externalize this process as multi-stage prompts or agent workflows which are expensive and vulnerable to cross-stage drift. We propose StructPO, a struct-aware policy learning framework that internalizes the entire multi-stage writing workflow into a single-pass policy controlled by explicit stage tokens. StructPO introduces struct-aware credit assignment to decouple local stage quality from global coherence and refinement-guided optimization to internalize revision behavior into the first-pass policy. Experiments show that StructPO improves semantic alignment, structural rationality and inference efficiency over workflow-based baselines, generalizes to out-of-domain settings, and remains competitive with GPT-5.1 in human evaluation when scaled to Qwen3-32B. These results show that internalizing academic writing workflows through fine-grained policy optimization offers a viable alternative to costly external orchestration.

Software supply-chain attacks increasingly exploit an identity gap where compromised maintainer accounts authorize malicious changes. This work evaluates patch-level authorship verification as a behavioral defense layer, showing that stylometric analysis can operate not only on full source files but also on patch-level commits. We fine-tune a cross-modal transformer on more than 20 years of Linux kernel commit history to embed code diffs and commit messages into a unified stylometric space, achieving ROC AUC of 0.93 for open-world authorship verification. We then use these representations in a streaming anomaly detector suited to continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) settings. We validate the pipeline on two retrospective supply-chain incidents involving different patch characteristics: the 2021 PHP backdoor and the 2026 ForceMemo/GlassWorm campaign. Without retraining, the proposed detector surfaces both PHP forged commits within approximately 1% of the maintainer audit queue and ranks the 28 scoreable ForceMemo spoofs with a median per-repository review burden of 0.8%. These results indicate that cross-modal patch-level embeddings can support behavioral triage against author impersonation in real-world repositories.

As digital drawings are increasingly shared online, reliable authorship verification has become important for protecting artists and resolving disputes. Yet when authorship is questioned, verification may have to rely only on the disputed drawing and reference drawings known to be created by the claimed artist. This setting is challenging for two reasons. First, artist-specific drawing behavior, such as pen pressure and movement speed, is informative but is not available from a completed drawing. Second, similarities in the depicted object or scene can obscure similarities arising from the artist. We propose IDraw, a framework that learns from drawings paired with tablet-pen sensor signals collected from separate training artists. This allows IDraw to infer drawing behavior from completed images during a later authorship dispute, without requiring sensor data from the artist being verified. IDraw also reduces the influence of drawing content by identifying information shared by drawings of the same object across different artists and suppressing it before comparing drawings. To support this approach, we construct the first multimodal dataset for digital drawing authorship verification, containing 1,110 drawings from 37 artists and 14 types of tablet-pen sensor signals. Evaluated on previously unseen artists across nine image-encoder backbones, IDraw consistently outperforms standard image-based verification and reduces verification error by up to 40%. These results demonstrate that inferring drawing behavior from completed images and suppressing drawing content improve digital drawing authorship verification.

Generating long-form content from extensive internal reports remains challenging for organizations operating under strict privacy and security constraints, where proprietary cloud-based LLM APIs are often not viable. While locally deployed open-weight models offer a privacy-preserving alternative, existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approaches on smaller models frequently lack effective global planning and accumulate factual inconsistencies over long outputs. To address these limitations, we present RH-RAG, a multi-agent framework for secure and trustworthy long form generation using local language models. RH-RAG decomposes generation into three coordinated stages: a Planner Agent that constructs a global document outline from high-level semantic summaries, a Writer Agent that incrementally generates coherent section-wise content using bounded coherence memory, and a Checker Agent that mitigates hallucinations through natural language inference-based factual verification and an attestation-driven revision loop. The framework further employs a dual-level retrieval index that supports efficient planning and fine-grained contextual generation on consumer-grade hardware. Evaluations across literary, financial, and legal domains demonstrate that RH-RAG consistently improves factual grounding, semantic coherence, and document-level alignment compared to standard and hierarchical RAG baselines, while achieving reliability competitive with proprietary cloud-based systems without compromising data privacy.

In an age of rapid model turnover, how do we make hallucination evaluation more perennial? We explore whether human-written hallucination samples could take the place of model-generated hallucinations, in order to make benchmarking detection independent of particular models. To this end, we construct a dataset of 1,600 human-written samples, spanning four languages (Chinese, English, French, Italian), and 18,400 samples from five vision-and-language models, all annotated for hallucinations using a fine-grained span-level labeling scheme. We find that human-written samples result in higher agreement and allow greater control of dataset contents, while remaining distributionally similar to samples derived from vision-and-language samples and providing a reasonable portrayal of detection capabilities - suggesting that human data is a viable substitute for model-based hallucination benchmarks.

Authorship Verification (AV) represents an important subfield of digital text forensics and addresses the fundamental question of whether two texts were written by the same author. Although the field has made substantial progress over the past two decades, several important challenges remain unresolved or underexplored. For instance, most AV research has focused on written texts, despite the fact that language is expressed not only in written but also in spoken form, such as in videos. Moreover, existing AV studies have predominantly concentrated on English, while other languages, including German, have received comparatively little attention. To address these research gaps, we apply AV to spoken language in the form of transcripts of German-language videos and examine the effectiveness of established AV methods in verifying a speaker's identity across video pairs. Our experimental evaluation, based on a total of ten AV methods applied to three self-compiled corpora comprising 300 videos from 150 speakers, shows that the best performance (up to 88% accuracy and 90% AUC) is achieved by traditional AV approaches based on simple character- and token n-gram representations. In contrast, more modern transformer-based approaches perform significantly worse on all evaluated corpora. Our results therefore suggest that traditional methods in the field of AV remain both competitive and relevant.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic writing and publishing (AWP) raises questions about linguistic inclusivity and the legitimacy of diverse Englishes in global scholarly communication. This article responds to these questions through a structured scholarly dialogue involving five sociolinguists from World Englishes and adjacent fields. Organised around five guiding questions, the dialogue interrogates how GenAI tools influence writing practices, reinforce or disrupt dominant language norms, and raise ethical challenges. Contributors reflect on the potential of GenAI to democratise writing processes while also raising concerns about GenAI's tendency to marginalise minoritised varieties and flatten nuance in scholarly writing. Across the dialogue, themes of linguistic (in)justice, researcher agency, and institutional responsibility emerge, with contributors calling for equity-informed policies, critical AI literacy, and inclusive co-design in GenAI development. The article shows the value of dialogic reflection in understanding GenAI's role in AWP. It concludes that while GenAI may reinforce existing hierarchies, it can also serve as a site of resistance, depending on how it is designed, governed and used within scholarly communities committed to linguistic diversity.

The majority of the recently-developed models for automated essay scoring (AES) are evaluated solely on the ASAP corpus. However, ASAP is not without its limitations. For instance, it is not clear whether models trained on ASAP can generalize well when evaluated on other corpora. In light of these limitations, we introduce ICLE++, a corpus of persuasive student essays annotated with both holistic scores and trait-specific scores. Not only can ICLE++ be used to test the generalizability of AES models trained on ASAP, but it can also facilitate the evaluation of models developed for newer AES problems such as multi-trait scoring and cross-prompt scoring. We believe that ICLE++, which represents a culmination of our long-term effort in annotating the essays in the ICLE corpus, contributes to the set of much-needed annotated corpora for AES research.

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.

We propose CHiPS, a lightweight character-level authorship attribution method for Romanian texts. All reported experiments are closed-set: the true author is one of the candidate authors in the training data. CHiPS studies two complementary fingerprints of writing style: CH-SVM, a character-histogram classifier based on one-character marginal distributions, and FFT12-LR, a positional-signal classifier that represents selected characters and punctuation classes as impulse trains (binary indicator sequences over character positions) and extracts Fourier/Welch spectral descriptors. We also report CHiPS-F, a leakage-safe decision-level fusion variant, and an optional top-5 listwise reranker trained only on out-of-fold predictions. The method requires no tokenization, syntactic analysis, pretrained language model, or transformer fine-tuning, and it avoids character $n$-gram features with $n \geq 2$ in the histogram component. On a locked grouped ROST split comprising 400 files from 392 source-text groups, written by 10 authors, with source-text-level evaluation and grouped five-fold model selection, CHiPS-F reaches 0.9310 accuracy and 0.9341 macro-F1. A matched but unrestricted character 2--5-gram TF--IDF SVM comparator reaches 1.0000 accuracy and macro-F1 on the same held-out groups, so the contribution is not a claim of best possible classification accuracy. Instead, the experiments ask how far restricted, transparent character evidence can go under strict leakage control. On ROSTories-cleaned, a secondary ROST-overlapping corpus comprising 1,248 files from 1,240 source-text groups, written by 19 authors, the same protocol gives 0.8919 accuracy and 0.8708 macro-F1 for CHiPS-R.

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

The rise of human-AI collaborative writing has created a growing need for fine-grained detection methods that support localizing likely LLM-generated content in mixed-authorship documents. Existing methods for detecting LLM-generated text mainly focus on document-level classification and cannot identify which parts of the text are generated by LLMs. This paper introduces a new method to address this urgent need. Our method operates at the token level, the natural unit of modern language models, and builds on existing token-level detection scores. The key idea is to smooth adjacent token scores to reduce their variability, while using an adaptive Lepski-type rule to select the bandwidth according to the local authorship structure. Our method is simple to implement and does not require token-level labeled data for training. Theoretically, we characterize this trade-off and show that the proposed method achieves favorable mean square error performance in estimating the underlying signal. Empirically, we demonstrate strong performance of our method against a wide range of baselines in both synthetic datasets and a realistic dataset. We deploy a publicly accessible website that implements the methods as well.

Long-sequence memory tracking places two opposing demands on a recurrent state: near-lossless retention of stored bindings over long horizons, and active overwriting of stale ones. In our diagnostic suite, the strongest efficient baselines tend to solve only one side well. Continuous-time-parameterized state-space models (SSMs) such as Mamba obtain their discrete recurrence by zero-order-hold discretization of a continuous-time system; we argue that this detour is unnecessary for memory tracking and parameterize the discrete transition directly. Naju (Native Adaptive Junction Unit) factorizes the recurrent update, schematically $x_n = f_n\odot x_{n-1} + i_n\odot(B_n u_n)$, into an explicit discrete pole (a learned forget gate $f_n$), an independent write gain $i_n$, and input-dependent write/read maps. Since the sigmoid pole satisfies $0<f_n<1$, each frozen local coordinate is Schur-stable by construction, and the full time-varying recurrence satisfies a fading-memory/BIBO bound under uniform boundedness assumptions, with no stability regularizer. We formalize the key structural limitation of coupled designs: any non-expansive complementary single-gate recurrence ties the effective retention $r$ and write gain $w$ through $|r|+w\le 1$, so near-complete retention forces weak writing; decoupling $f_n$ from $i_n$ removes this constraint. Empirically, Naju is the only evaluated model that remains strong on both retention and overwriting at 4x the training length. Beyond the diagnostic suite, we evaluate Naju on WikiText-103 language modeling, Long Range Arena, and multi-query associative recall. Across these settings, Naju consistently combines strong long-range memory with competitive or superior performance, outperforming the Mamba baselines in the principal comparisons while remaining competitive with the Transformer and preserving linear-time, linear-memory scaling.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

This paper frames Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) not as an unprecedented technological rupture, but as an industrial-scale manifestation of a deeply rooted historical process. Through a genealogy of generative arts, it shows how AI's questions on authorship and creativity have precise historical precedents. A taxonomy of generative systems is proposed across three functional categories (medium, artwork, instrument), the attribution of which is editorial rather than ontological. From individual cognitive atrophy to Model Collapse, the systemic risks of creative automation are identified; environmental enrichment is proposed as an antidote. The role of the artist undergoes a radical metamorphosis: from craftsman of the object to entropic agent, systems designer, explorer, and negentropic curator. This pipeline-based taxonomy rests on a specific premise: the algorithmic system remains medium, instrument, or artwork, while creative agency resides in the humans distributed along it. Algorithmic Repetition is introduced as the aesthetic degeneration of aligned generative systems; the Benjaminian aura does not dissolve in the generative era but condenses upon the productive system. Manifestation is proposed as a third ontological status for generative works, transcending the dichotomy between original and copy. To support the proposed theses, two complementary aspects are examined: the radicalization of distributed authorship; and the reevaluation of older generative models, whose instability constitutes an aesthetic degree of freedom lost by recent ones.

Prior work on LLM-generated text has demonstrated quantitative and qualitative departures from text produced by humans. LLM-generated texts differ from human writing in style, resulting in a characteristic textual "feel," while the semantic range of LLMs is much restricted compared to that of humans. In this contribution, I note simple but consistent patterns in the statistical distribution of n-grams within LLM-generated text. Via qualitative analysis of these n-grams, I reveal deficiencies in LLM style. Because higher-order n-grams correlate to semantic content, I conclude that questions of style and semantics are not cleanly separable.

The broad adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI, raises pressing questions about how users interact with these systems to produce new content. In this paper, we introduce the concept of authorship calibration, defined as users awareness of their actual authorship when interacting with AI. Using the CoAuthor dataset, we empirically examine how authorship calibration varies across users and how it relates to their frequency of AI use. Our results reveal high variability: users relying heavily on AI tend to misjudge their authorship, whereas those using AI less frequently exhibit more accurate authorship calibration. These findings suggest that AI can obscure users perception of their own authorship. In learning contexts, miscalibration can affect metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies, ultimately impacting learning outcomes. Fostering authorship calibration then appears essential for promoting responsible and educationally meaningful AI integration.

Given the current trend to employ large language models (LLMs) in almost any imaginable context, LLM-generated text detection and authorship attribution have become a pressing issue. Prior work has primarily focused on surface-level linguistic features, an approach shown to be susceptible to paraphrasing and other obfuscation techniques. In this paper, we go beyond the linguistic surface, extracting and analysing reasoning structures in LLM-generated texts with the goal of capturing more complex signals of LLM authorship. We propose a graph neural network approach that leverages reasoning graphs extracted by an argument mining pipeline, demonstrating improved robustness and generalisation over a traditional Longformer baseline. Our approach outperforms the baseline by up to 27 percentage points under the obfuscation attacks such as paraphrasing and backtranslation, and 19 percentage points when evaluated on the texts generated by the unseen model versions, simulating real-world conditions in which new LLM versions are continuously released.

This study examines the cross-prompt generalization and first-language (L1) scoring effects of a LoRA-adapted open-weight large language model (Gemma-3-27B-it) applied to automated essay scoring. Using the identical model and inference configuration reported in "AiAWE: An Open-Source LLM Automated Writing Evaluation System Using LoRA-Adapted Instruction-Tuned Models" (Gayed, 2026), which was fine-tuned on 480 argumentative essays from two prompts, we evaluate scoring accuracy on the full TOEFL11 corpus: 12,100 essays written by test-takers from 11 first-language backgrounds across eight prompts, none of which were seen during training. The model's raw scores (0.5-5.0) are mapped to the same three proficiency bands (low, medium, high) used by ETS, enabling direct comparison. The model achieved an overall band agreement of 77.79% and a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.702, with adjacent-band agreement of 99.98%. Accuracy was stable across all eight unseen prompts, with no advantage for prompts thematically related to the training data, indicating robust cross-prompt generalization. However, the model exhibited a systematic, L1-linked scoring offset. Within every proficiency band, essays from European-language backgrounds received consistently higher scores than essays from East-Asian-language backgrounds, a pattern not attributable to the composition of the fine-tuning data. This is the first large-scale L1 fairness analysis of a fine-tuned open-weight LLM for automated essay scoring.

This study examines feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing contexts, focusing on written corrective feedback (WCF). Large language models (LLMs) can provide WCF at scale, but aligning them with pedagogical best practices remains an ongoing challenge. WCF meeting criteria like factuality or relevance may still be unsuitable for learning contexts, highlighting the need for extrinsic evaluation based on the learner's perspective. We deployed WCF systems in a university-level EFL class with nearly 2,000 students, collecting over 20,000 drafts. We evaluated the generated WCF from two perspectives: intrinsic evaluation by experienced English teachers using a rubric, and extrinsic evaluation via student feedback and engagement metrics. Results revealed low alignment between teacher expert ratings and student feedback. These findings suggest that traditional expert evaluation alone may not fully capture WCF's usability or helpfulness from the learner's perspective, highlighting the importance of learner-centered evaluation frameworks for AI-based applications in language education.

Generative AI chatbots promise to transform English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing by providing immediate, personalised feedback. However, their pedagogical value depends on how learners engage with them - a process often treated as a "black box." This study uses Transition Network Analysis to model the temporal dynamics of Japanese EFL learners using "Penny," an LLM-powered writing chatbot. Analysis of over 4,500 writing sessions and 21,000 chatbot interactions reveals two dominant behavioural loops: a "Revision Loop," where feedback leads directly to successful error correction, and a "Chat Loop," where learners engage in sustained dialogue with the chatbot following feedback. Crucially, EFL proficiency significantly shapes interaction: high-proficiency learners engage more in open dialogue and negotiation with the chatbot, while low-proficiency learners rely more heavily on repetitive corrective feedback cycles. The findings demonstrate that AI-scaffolded writing is a non-linear, dialogic process and highlight the need for differentiated chatbot design to move beyond simple error correction and foster deeper cognitive engagement for all learners.

This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays. WrAFT adopts a modular design by dividing automated writing evaluation (AWE) tasks into scoring, surface-level feedback, and deep-level feedback. In building the system, various Large Language Models (LLMs) have been evaluated, including LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.7, through both direct prompting and supervised fine-tuning approaches. A proprietary dataset of 480 TOEFL Independent Writing essays with official benchmark scores was utilized. Benchmark-based evaluation shows that WrAFT achieves state-of-the-art performance in scoring, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.84 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 against official scores on a scale of 0-5. Human evaluation of system-generated feedback also reveals high approval ratings: 96.14 percent for surface-level feedback, 93.03 percent for deep-level macro feedback, and 94.69 percent for deep-level micro feedback. An interactive user interface has been developed for the system and is publicly available and free to use.

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

Historical Manchu OCR must accommodate various visually distinct writing styles, including regular script, running script, and the semi-cursive chancery hand used in palace memorials, despite limited labeled data. We study a multi-expert system that reuses checkpoints from an iterative fine-tuning process as domain specialists and uses a lightweight page-level image classifier to dispatch pages by visual style. When the checkpoint pool lacks a suitable specialist, we train an additional expert for that domain. On three frozen test sets, the routed system matches the selected specialist for each style at two-decimal precision: 0.30 percent CER on regular script, 1.57 percent on memorials, and 4.83 percent on running script. The router achieves 99.3 percent page-level domain accuracy and matches the domain-label oracle at the same precision. Two of the three selected specialists were not trained specifically for their final domain; only the running-script expert was trained with that domain as its target. We report the evaluation protocol, router design, and per-page predictions to make the comparison reproducible.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown. Here, in a randomized crossover field experiment, 121 employees across six companies sent work emails under three conditions over three weeks: unaided writing, GPT-5 rewriting in a playful tone, and GPT-5 rewriting in a professional tone. Across 16,880 emails, playful editing increased emotional positivity (B=+0.068, p<0.001), and professional editing decreased it (B=-0.041, p<0.001), yet neither condition directly altered open rates, reply rates, or response times. Instead, within-sender positivity strongly predicted both opening (OR=2.05) and replying (OR=3.32, p<0.001), a significant indirect pathway through which AI editing shaped behavior, in the absence of any direct effect. These findings suggest that AI-assisted communication shapes workplace engagement not through its use, but through the emotional tone of the language it produces.

As AI code tools become integrated into programming environments, students increasingly describe intended behavior in natural language and rely on these tools to generate code, shifting emphasis from code writing to specification. Yet little is known about the comments students write as specifications in AI-assisted programming tasks. We analyze a four-year dataset of undergraduate programming submissions and reflections from tasks in which students wrote comments to guide code generation and refined solutions using test-case feedback. We introduce a taxonomy spanning three dimensions: comment type, code expression level, and code construct. Using automated classification, we examine how these dimensions vary across attempts and how students describe the process in their reflections. Our findings show that students mostly wrote natural-language What comments, shifted toward How comments for more procedural constructs, and focused more on verifying generated code than on repeatedly rewriting comments.

Authorship verification (AV) is the task of determining whether two texts were written by the same author. In a forensic context, the strength of AV evidence can be quantified using likelihood ratios. Most AV methods are score-based and deriving well-calibrated likelihood ratios from these scores requires a separate calibration model. This, in turn, requires additional amounts of case-relevant data, which is often time-consuming to obtain and prepare. This study proposes two novel normalisation techniques, the Square Root Correction and the Hapax Correction, for deriving likelihood ratios from the AV method LambdaG without the need of a calibration model (Nini et al. 2026). These corrections are designed to mitigate the overestimation of evidential strength that may result from long or highly repetitive texts. Performance is evaluated against logistic regression calibration across fifteen corpora and a range of text lengths (100-9,500 tokens), using the log-likelihood ratio cost (Cllr). The proposed methods achieve performance comparable to logistic regression calibration, with the Hapax Correction outperforming it in approximately 45% of tests (weighted by corpora). Furthermore, performance was more frequently close (within 5%) when the Hapax Correction was outperformed by logistic regression calibration, compared with the reverse comparison. Eliminating the need to train a calibration model reduces data-requirements, time and complexity, thereby increasing the accessibility and transparency of forensic text comparison. This combination of empirical performance and practical advantages supports the adoption of the proposed methods in forensic settings.