Authorship

Standard distributed \ac{llm} schedulers rely on static token counts or rolling latency averages, making them susceptible to failures on statutorily constrained text. On \ac{epo} claims governed by Article 84 \ac{epc}, linguistic rigidity makes human and machine authorship statistically indistinguishable. Resolving this ambiguity mid-flight forces dynamic multi-model ensemble expansion, triggering unpredictable KV-cache and weight-allocation spikes that saturate consumer-grade edge GPU VRAM and cause severe \ac{oom} crashes. To prevent hardware collapse, we propose a CPU-side Linguistic Resource Forecasting (LRF) gateway. The gateway extracts a 16-dimensional text-structure vector and applies an XGBoost predictor to forecast trap-band membership. The resulting escalation probability ($\Pesc$) is evaluated against a dynamic, closed-form routing threshold ($\Tauroute(t)$) computed via real-time latency telemetry. Requests are safely routed to either a local Qwen2.5-7B edge worker or a remote contrastive ensemble (Qwen2.5 7B + 32B) on an NVIDIA H100 \emph{before} any edge GPU memory is allocated. In a 6,000-request live trial, the LRF gateway reduced the operational misroute fraction ($R_{\mathrm{mis}}$) to $0.087$--$0.095$, an order of magnitude below the token-count baseline ($0.849$). Peak edge VRAM remained safely bounded at $\SI{4.82}{\gibi\byte}$ (under the $\SI{8}{\gibi\byte}$ ceiling) across a $27\times$ variation in \ac{wan} delay. The predictor achieved a live-trial AUROC of $0.84$, and the dynamic $\Tauroute(t)$ controller yielded an $8.2\%$ relative reduction in misroutes compared to an equivalent static threshold.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has traditionally been published in its core disciplinary venues like ACL. However, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a blurring of the disciplinary lines between NLP and general Machine Learning (ML), with authors regularly publishing in venues from both fields. Here, we ask whether the disciplinary center of gravity is shifting. Using NLP research published from 2010 to 2026 and studies of both established and new authors, we find that a migration is taking place. First, comparing the pre- and post-LLM eras, established authors lost 19.2pp of share at flagship *ACL main-conference tracks while gaining 14.8pp in the newer Findings tracks, and general ML venues rose 8.6pp, even when adjusting for parallel growth in the fields. Second, among newer authors who debut with at least three first-author NLP-topic papers, the share whose work appears mostly at *ACL venues fell from 84% (2019) to 74% (2024), while the share appearing mostly at general ML venues rose from 5% to 21%. Using causal inference techniques, we estimate that these general ML venues confer a significant citation premium, which influences venue selection. Together, these results point to a significant shift in where NLP research is published.

Rhetorical strategies and their influence on audiences are often studied through social media posts and comments. However, this focus overlooks the universal audience, which is the majority of readers who remain silent and do not explicitly express how a message affects them. This study investigates how two classical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos, resonate in the silent audience's interpretations of meaning. Using a dataset of social media sentences paired with human-written interpretations, we label both sources for ethos and pathos and assess whether these rhetorical appeals are preserved. Our analyses show that interpretations diverge from the original sentences in 30% of cases, with rhetorically charged content eliciting greater variability than neutral content. We further find that ethos and pathos in original sentences can predict audience attitudes toward the author, underscoring the subtle ways rhetoric shapes perception beyond visible engagement.

Effective writing feedback is among the strongest drivers of student learning, yet producing it at scale is labor-intensive. LLMs offer a natural path to scaling writing support, but two gaps stand in the way: few public corpora capture how instructors actually deliver feedback in real classrooms, and no reliable method measures whether generated feedback aligns with what an instructor would write. We address both. SEFORA is a public corpus pairing instructor inline feedback with assignment prompts, rubrics, scores, and multi-draft revisions across various college writing genres, comprising 564 drafts and 8,240 instructor annotations. UniMatch is a reference-based evaluation framework for open-ended generation: it segments feedback into feedback units, scores their semantic correspondence under instructor-derived criteria, and aligns them via optimal matching to yield interpretable precision, recall, and F1. Across 74 experimental configurations spanning multiple LLMs, no setting exceeds 0.4 F1. UniMatch reveals that models struggle to identify the feedback instructors would prioritize, and performance degrades as models generate more.

While semantic embeddings are rigorously evaluated on the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark, the evaluation of style embeddings remains fragmented, with each work relying on their own set of tasks and datasets. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Style Text Embedding Benchmark, a comprehensive open-source benchmark intended to standardize the evaluation of style embeddings. STEB encompasses 96 datasets across 7 languages, spanning applications such as authorship verification, authorship retrieval, AI-text detection, probing of linguistic features, and others. We find that semantic embeddings consistently fail in stylistic tasks, and that there is no style embedding that is universally superior across all tasks evaluated. We open-source the STEB code base at: https://github.com/rrivera1849/STEB.

This study analyzes the novelty distribution of scholarly papers in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) in China, with a focus on differences across journals, research topics, and time periods. Articles published in Chinese LIS journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) from 2000 to 2022 were collected as the research sample. BERTopic was applied to paper abstracts to identify research topics, and novelty scores were calculated based on the combinatorial innovation theory of reference pairs cited by focal papers. The study then examined the novelty of papers under different topics and further analyzed author collaboration patterns to explain how collaboration may be associated with paper novelty. The results show that archival research topics generally have lower novelty, whereas topics related to journal evaluation and patent technology display higher novelty in Chinese LIS research. Overall, the novelty of papers in this field has gradually increased over time. Papers with different topics and novelty levels also show distinct collaboration patterns: low-novelty topics are more often associated with solo authorship, while high-novelty topics tend to involve a higher proportion of inter-institutional collaboration. This study reveals the topic-level characteristics and temporal trends of novelty in Chinese LIS research and provides a new perspective for understanding how research topics and collaboration patterns influence scholarly innovation.

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often focus on detecting whether a final artifact was generated by AI, while overlooking the conversation history that reveals human direction, AI contribution, corrections, validation, and traceability. This paper introduces LLMography, a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, reproducibility, and auditability. By analogy with bibliography and webography, LLMography documents the dynamic trajectory of interaction between a human and a Large Language Model as a structured trace of Human-AI co-production. We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates KPI reports including Prompt Quality Score, Human Direction Score, AI Dependency Level, Auditability Score, Final Output Traceability, Privacy Risk Level, and a recommended LLMography label. A preliminary exploratory evaluation was conducted on 19 anonymized audit reports from engineering students. Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability. The paper also applies LLMography to its own writing process, classified as human-originated, human-directed, AI-assisted co-production. The findings suggest that AI transparency should move beyond output detection toward documenting the history of interaction.

Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them. Existing instruments assess reliance solely by frequency of use, a measure that, as this study shows, inadvertently rewards dependence on AI rather than recognizing students' own intellectual contribution. Conducted at a public minority-serving university and grounded in the AI Literacy Framework, Expectancy-Value Theory, and Biggs's Presage-Process-Product model, the study drew on 382 undergraduates, 14 interviews, and 396 open-ended survey responses. Four distinct reliance types were identified and confirmed: Strategic (34.3%), Instrumental (30.9%), Dialogic (30.4%), and Dependent (4.5%). Students' value and cost beliefs predicted the intensity of their reliance on LLMs, whereas their AI literacy predicted the type of reliance they adopted, indicating that differentiated support is needed. Notably, Strategic users, those who engaged AI most deliberately, scored lowest on standard outcome measures. This pattern reflects a limitation of current instruments, which index AI's contribution rather than writing quality, thereby penalizing students who show the greatest independent thinking. Analysis also revealed an additional group, roughly 13%, who declined to use AI for ethical rather than practical reasons, and who existing frameworks overlook. These findings carry implications for AI literacy programs, the measurement of student learning outcomes, and equitable AI policy at minority-serving institutions.

Factual Error Detection (FED), which is the task of identifying factually incorrect spans in a given text, has long been recognized as an important research problem. However, with the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs), research attention has shifted toward factual errors specific to LLM-generated text (hallucinations) and their detection. As a result, the detection of factual errors in human-written text has been relatively neglected. To address this gap, we first distill a taxonomy of human-induced factual errors by analyzing corrections of newspaper articles, a representative source of text that is guaranteed to be human-written and contains few grammatical errors. Our analysis revealed that there are characteristic categories such as kanji misconversions and unit errors, which are not focused in existing hallucination benchmarks. Based on the taxonomy, we then evaluate the FED capability of vanilla LLMs on synthesized realistic test cases and real corrections. Experimental results demonstrated that even high-performance LLMs such as GPT-5.4 achieved only word-level F1 score of 52% on the synthetic evaluation data, highlighting the task difficulty. Furthermore, a detailed analysis by detection difficulty revealed the current state of FED.

AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers experience it in terms of immersiveness and literary effect-aspects poorly captured by automatic metrics or human evaluation targeting fluency and adequacy. We ask 15 avid readers to compare recently published human translations (HT) to machine translations (MT) generated with an agentic language model-based pipeline, for 15 recent novels in French, Polish, and Japanese translated into English. Readers evaluated approximately 8K-word excerpts in two conditions: immersive reading of the whole excerpt (30 comparisons) and close reading of 386 aligned HT-MT chunk pairs (772 comparisons), with two readers per book. Overall, readers find MT "fine", but prefer HT (descriptively at the excerpt level, 19/30, and significantly at the chunk level, 522/772) for its ease, clarity, and immersive nature. Readers' highlights show that MT's quality varies more within one book than HT's does. Crucially, readers cannot reliably tell the two apart (17/30 guess correctly) and tend to prefer the version they believe to be human. Automatic metrics, including LLM-as-a-judge approaches, fail to recover reader preferences and favor MT. We release LAIT (Literary AI Translation), a reader-centered evaluation dataset with 1K reader comments, 2K judgments and preference ratings, and 7.2K span-level annotations, along with our evaluation protocol and supporting interface.

Highlights provide a concise summary of the main contributions of an academic paper and help readers quickly understand its focus. However, many journals do not provide highlights, which limits their use in literature retrieval, text mining, and bibliometric analysis. Existing studies have explored supervised learning methods for automatic highlight extraction, but these methods usually require large amounts of labeled training data. This study investigates prompt-based learning for automatic highlight generation. We design task-specific prompt templates and combine them with paper abstracts as model inputs. Several language models are evaluated, including locally deployed pre-trained models such as GPT-2 and T5, as well as ChatGPT accessed through an API. Experiments on three datasets show that ChatGPT with prompt templates achieves performance comparable to previous supervised methods without using task-specific training samples. When a small number of examples are added to the prompts, the model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on two datasets. We further analyze how prompt design affects generation quality and find that, although ChatGPT has strong language modeling ability, its performance on this task is highly sensitive to the information provided in the prompt. Case studies also show that the generated highlights are generally coherent, informative, and close to author-written highlights. This study is among the first to apply prompt-based learning to academic highlight generation. The proposed method does not rely on domain-specific training corpora and can generate highlights for papers that lack such information, thereby supporting downstream text mining and bibliometric research.

Fine-tuned encoders deployed across heterogeneous NLP tasks face three compounding problems: mismatched inductive biases, class-imbalance corruption of feature statistics, and no mechanism to condition attention on external lexical knowledge. We introduce \textbf{\surgellm}, a unified transformer framework that addresses each with a dedicated lightweight module: a \emph{surgical feature gate} (learned per-dimension sigmoid over curated lexical indicators and \texttt{[CLS]}; provably degenerates to identity when features are uninformative), \emph{task-conditioned prefix tokens} (quantized feature values and task identity prepended to every input), and \emph{Instance-Weighted Normalization} (IWN; removes class-prior bias from gate statistics). We prove an excess-risk bound linking gate benefit to \emph{surgical feature alignment}. Across four tasks, SST-2, multi-hop retrieval, LLM-prompt attribution, and authorship detection, covering 17,830 examples and eleven model variants over three seeds, the IWN variant achieves macro-F1 \textbf{0.940} ($+0.036$ over the strongest non-IWN baseline; $+0.130$ on authorship detection). A random-vocabulary control ($-0.028$ avg.\ F1) confirms gains are lexical, not parametric. Code, vocabularies, and a $99.5\%$-recovery auto-extraction recipe are released.

Large language models are making research production scalable, shifting the bottleneck from producing artifacts to judging claims. We present \textsc{Agon}, a research orchestrator that validates what can be checked inside the workflow and leaves the remaining judgments to human scientists. \textsc{Agon} is built on six design principles: Prompt Economy, Future-Facing, Minimal Prompts, OmniDisciplinary, Massive Parallelism, and Zero-Code. We ran \textsc{Agon} across domains for 444 iterations of Prompt Economy loops, using only small starting topics and no human-written experimental code. These deployments demonstrate scalability while exposing new classes of failure. We organize these failures into a taxonomy along severity, fixability, visibility, and capability locus. The taxonomy separates failures the loops can see and fix from those that require human judgment. Together, these results show that \textsc{Agon} is pushing research toward a new paradigm: machine scales, human steers.

Pooled across five AI coding agents, pull requests (PRs) with a human Co-Authored-By trailer merge less often than purely-autonomous ones (53.8% vs. 79.8%) -- yet this aggregate finding is a textbook Simpson's Paradox. Stratifying 33,596 PRs from the AIDev dataset by agent identity reverses the conclusion: Copilot and Devin show large positive within-agent gaps (+41.2 and +33.5 pp, both p<0.001), while Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex show small effects whose cross-sectional 95% CIs span zero. The paradox is driven entirely by agent composition: Codex, which dominates 64.9% of the dataset, achieves high merge rates while rarely using co-authorship. But Simpson's Paradox is only the first layer of a cascade of confounders: within-repo controls eliminate Devin's gap (+33.5 to +1.6 pp, p=0.73); a commit-count control further halves Copilot's within-repo gap (+36.2 to +24.4 pp); restricted to multi-commit PRs, the Copilot within-repo effect dissolves to +4.8 pp (p=0.59). No agent retains a clear co-authorship effect once both repository selection and PR structure are controlled. Our findings caution against reporting agent-pooled statistics without stratification and demonstrate that cross-sectional co-authorship associations are largely selection and PR-structure artefacts rather than evidence of a causal benefit.

As LLM-generated text is increasingly used, especially in fictional domains, we explore how much LLM-generated stories differ from human-written stories. In this work, we focus on characters. We borrow definitions from narratology to analyze eight intricate dimensions of character, such as stylization and wholeness. These dimensions consider more than just basic characteristics. They assess how characters are portrayed within their stories. After automatically inferring categories of characters within both LLM and human-written stories, we compare and contrast these two sets of stories. We consider the following overarching questions: (1) Do LLMs and human-written stories have similar characters? and (2) Do LLMs generate stories with a variety of characters? Our analysis includes research questions that focus on stories generated by popular LLMs and recently published human-written stories. We describe a number of interesting similarities, differences and key takeaways.

In the rapidly evolving field of software development, code stylometry analyzing unique stylistic signatures of programmers plays a crit-ical role in authorship attribution and cybersecurity. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, have introduced new dimensions to this field, challenging traditional stylometry techniques. This study investigates the effectiveness of LLMs in altering code stylometry while preserving functionality and evaluates the impact of various prompt engineering strategies. Through comprehensive experiments, we assess how well these models can obscure stylistic signatures to avoid detection by a Random Forest classifier trained for authorship attribution. The results reveal significant differences in effectiveness between single-shot and multi-shot methods and highlight the importance of detailed, structured prompts. Additionally, functionality preservation checks demonstrate the challenges in maintaining code integrity post-modification. This research provides critical insights into the robustness of authorship attribution techniques against advanced AI capabilities, informing future cybersecurity and software engineering developments

The automated design of agentic systems offers a promising pathway for scaling large language models (LLMs) beyond single-agent reasoning. While prior work has advanced task performance through handcrafted or automatically generated multi-agent workflows, robustness is often treated as an afterthought, leaving systems vulnerable to external adversaries and internal failures. We propose AutoRAS, a framework for the Automated design of Robust Agentic Systems. AutoRAS formulates system design as generating a sequence of symbolic primitives that jointly encode structural connectivity and behavioral actions, and learns to optimize this sequence using execution-derived safety signals and flow-based sequence-level objectives. Extensive experiments show that AutoRAS achieves the best performance in both vanilla and adversarial settings, with the smallest performance degradation under attacks. Further analyses demonstrate strong transferability, stable optimization behavior, stability across primitive sets, and favorable cost trade-offs. Our code is available at $\href{https://github.com/guohezuy/AutoRAS}{\text{this https URL}}$.

Software engineering has long inferred where a system's knowledge resides from who authored its code. The truck factor, the Degree-of-Authorship metric, and the degree-of-knowledge model all rest on one inference -- that authoring a region of code is evidence of understanding it -- and for most of software's history it was a workable proxy, because code entered a repository only when a human wrote it, which forced at least transient understanding. This paper argues that AI code generation severs that inference at its root, and that the consequence is not the degradation of the authorship-based metrics but their invalidation as a class. When an agent generates a module and a human merges it, the version-control record still attributes authorship, but the attribution no longer licenses any conclusion about comprehension: the same footprint is now compatible with full, partial, or no understanding. The metric still returns a number; the number measures a substrate that has come uncoupled from the quantity it was used to estimate. The collapse is corroborated by the field's own measurement failures, and the methodological corollary is load-bearing: the instrument the comprehension-debt era needs cannot be built by refining the knowledge-concentration metrics, because no function of an authorship footprint recovers an inference the footprint no longer supports. The replacement must be grounded in evidence of comprehension rather than authorship. I state a falsifiable prediction that discriminates the two -- that systems with a healthy authorship-derived truck factor but low comprehension-measured retention will suffer incident-resolution failures the authorship metric does not predict -- and argue that building the comprehension-grounded instrument at the scale of a system and a team is the field's open measurement problem, left open here.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly review and revise text, including their own. A documented self-preference bias (models favoring their own generations when acting as judges) raises the question of whether models also resist valid corrections to their own writing. We test this in a setting where "valid" is decided not by another model but by a deterministic verifier: instruction-following revision on IFEval. A model writes a draft; the official IFEval checker confirms the draft violates a constraint and that a candidate edit fixes it; the model then accepts or rejects that edit either as the genuine in-context author or as a fresh model that sees the draft neutrally. Across four mid-tier model families and 85 author-versus-fresh comparisons, we find no detectable self-preference: authors reject verified-good fixes to their own drafts at essentially the same rate as fresh models judging the same drafts (gap -5.1 pp, 95% CI [-12.9, +2.7]). A self-skepticism hint from a smaller pilot did not replicate at scale. The one robust observation is qualitative: when authors do reject a verified-good fix, 97% of their stated reasons are flaw-catching rather than preference, that is, about the character of rejections, not an elevated rate. Effects smaller than ~13 pp cannot be excluded at this sample size.

Legal precedents protect computer code as copyrightable expression. They have enabled centralized digital platforms -- operating from corporate servers that hold all user data -- to construct private governance regimes through the interaction of copyright, contract, and technical architecture: people who create virtually all platform value must surrender effective copyright control through Terms of Service agreements as a condition of participation. In contrast, grassroots platforms consist of cryptographically-identified people operating their networked smartphones independently of any server or global resource; each person holds their own data on their own device, with no third party in possession or intermediation. Here, we define the notion of a digital speech act -- a deliberate volitional act by a person of cryptographically signing personal content with the person's private key, carried out on the person's own device -- through which the person simultaneously establishes attribution, accountability, and authorship over the signed content. We contend that (i) digital speech acts qualify for copyright protection under existing U.S. precedent: Burrow-Giles locates authorship in volitional creative choices despite mechanical or algorithmic processes, Feist supplies the minimal-creativity threshold, and persistent device storage satisfies the Copyright Act's fixation requirement; (ii) the digital social contract underlying grassroots platforms preserves this copyright by design -- signed content cannot be unbundled from its signature, and the full provenance chain accumulates as content is forwarded -- so that copyright ownership and physical possession of authenticated digital expressions coalesce in the person; and (iii) this coalescence of legal ownership and physical possession provides the foundations for digital sovereignty and democratic self-governance.

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

The likelihood ratio framework is widely recognized as the logically and legally sound basis for evidential analysis across forensic sciences, and its importance is increasingly acknowledged in analyses of authorship in textual evidence. To date, however, its application has been confined to English-language texts. Meanwhile, authorship attribution has traditionally relied on a diverse array of stylometric features, even as the rise of pre-trained large language models enables new contextual-embedding approaches. Combining these diverse approaches through fusion promises enhanced performance, yet it has not been applied to integrate stylometric-feature systems with embedding-based systems within the likelihood ratio paradigm. This study is the first to apply likelihood ratio-based forensic text comparison to Japanese digital texts, using ~1,000-character excerpts from blogs, to 1) evaluate system performance and likelihood ratio magnitudes and 2) assess the impact of fusing stylometric-feature systems with embedding-based systems. The results demonstrate that the fused system maintains excellent calibration while 1) increasing consistent-with-fact likelihood ratio magnitudes; 2) decreasing contrary-to-fact likelihood ratio magnitudes and 3) improving overall discriminability. The best-performing fusion achieved a log-likelihood-ratio cost of 0.32484, illustrating both the feasibility of likelihood ratio framework for Japanese and the benefits of fusion across heterogeneous systems.

Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs. The benchmark uses a fully balanced 2x2 factorial design crossing claim veracity with citation veracity, the first to do so, across four domains (general knowledge, science, law, and medicine), with controlled variation over 40 prompt templates, four venue prestige tiers, and a country-coded author name dataset. Evaluating seven models on 12 structured research questions, we find that citation presence, whether real or fabricated, consistently increases hallucination rates relative to a no-citation baseline. The effect is strongest when fabricated citations accompany true claims, raising hallucination rates by 3 to 22 percentage points and reaching 35 to 77% in the general knowledge domain, while legal claims are comparatively robust and venue prestige and author demographics show negligible impact. All datasets and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/floating-reeds/AuthorityBench

Thanks to the rapid adoption of AI code assistants powered by large language models (LLMs), industry codebases are, increasingly, a hybrid of AI- and human-authored code. For risk management and productivity analysis purposes, it is crucial to enable fine-grained location detection of AI-generated code. To develop algorithms for this task, quality benchmarks are needed to assess performance. However, existing benchmarks tend to comprise academic, LeetCode-style problems and presume a code snippet is either completely human-authored or completely AI-authored, which is not reflective of the diverse intents and styles of industry codebases utilizing AI code assistants. To fill these gaps, we introduce HybridCodeAuthorship, a novel benchmark of Python code files with interleaved human- and AI-authored lines of code to simulate authentic utilization of AI code assistants. In this paper, we first present our dataset construction pipeline, which leverages CodeSearchNet, a massive collection of links to open sourced repositories on GitHub. We then benchmark the performance of two state-of-the-art AI-generated code detection algorithms at both the line- and chunk-level. Experimental results demonstrate that HybridCodeAuthorship is a challenging benchmark with a top-scoring algorithm, AIGCode Detector, obtaining a highest F1 score of 0.48 and 0.56 on chunk-level and line-level code detection tasks, respectively.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.

How can we design a market of human-generated content for use in training AI models that both enables technological progress and preserves individual incentives for high-quality content creation? Existing approaches take polar positions: a "free-for-all" model based on fair use and a "strong intellectual property rights" model. We show that both fail: Free-for-all does not compensate creators, and -- by modeling as a static Stackelberg game -- strong intellectual property rights also underpower creative incentives. We find this especially true for more innovative creators, a phenomenon we term the "originality penalty." Extending this insight to a dynamic model, we find another market failure undermining AI model performance, even for an initially good model: Such a model induces greater reliance by humans on AI-assisted creation, resulting in homogenized content feeding back into training, which degrades the model performance -- a "curse of precision." We further propose a market design with a data intermediary internalizing cross-creator externalities and subsidizing innovative contributions, thereby restoring efficiency.

Spoken language, whether produced by humans or large language models (LLM), unfolds over time with varying semantic content. However, we still lack simple, interpretable time-series features that capture how generic versus specific content is distributed over time, and that can be used to compare human and AI-generated speech. We introduce a semantic-timescale analysis pipeline that turns word-level transcripts with timestamps into semantic time-series. For each spoken narrative, we compute (i) semantic specificity using WordNet-based word depth and (ii) contextual similarity using SBERT embeddings and quantify their temporal dependence using autocorrelation-window measures (ACW-0 and related metrics). We then compare original speech to multiple shuffled controls that selectively disrupt lexical identity, temporal order, and word duration. Across human-read autobiographical narratives, TTS readings, and LLM-generated texts rendered with TTS, we find that segments with longer ACW-0 in the semantic time-series tend to contain more generic vocabulary, whereas segments with shorter ACW-0 are enriched in more specific words. These associations are strongly attenuated or abolished when word order and timing are randomized, indicating that ACW-based measures capture non-trivial temporal organization of semantic content beyond static lexical distributions. Our results suggest that ACW-based semantic timescales are a useful family of features for analyzing and comparing the temporal structure of human and AI-generated speech.

As agentic applications increasingly route user tasks through official and third-party LLM APIs, provenance becomes an operational question: which model generated a given black-box response? We study Dynamic Black-Box LLM Provenance: identifying the source LLM from generations elicited by query-varying, non-predefined prompts rather than a fixed input set or benchmark suite. This setting is difficult because prompt semantics dominate the text, while model-specific authorship traces are weak and inconsistent at the surface level. We introduce READER (Robust Evidence-based Authorship Decoding via Extracted Representations), a lightweight provenance framework that treats a frozen proxy LLM as a reader of hidden authorship evidence. READER maps black-box outputs into proxy activation space, temporally filters token states within each response, and performs Bayesian Evidence Accumulation by summing single-response log-posterior evidence across independently sampled prompts. This avoids fragile mean-pooling of prompt-specific representations while preserving the query-wise evidence needed for calibrated confidence. On Agent500, a 50-target dataset built from agent-style prompts, READER reaches $31.0$-$42.4\%$ top-1 accuracy from a single response and $70.0$-$84.0\%$ from 50 responses, substantially outperforming sentence-encoder fingerprints. Scaling across nine proxy readers further shows that stronger LLMs expose more linearly decodable authorship structure, suggesting that authorship perception is already present in frozen LLM representations and can be converted into reliable multi-query attribution.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about misuse such as plagiarism, misinformation, and automated influence operations, motivating the need for robust detectors. Recent work has shown that neural representations of writing style are effective for detection and, crucially, robust to adversarial attacks that defeat most existing detectors. However, current style-based detectors rely on authorship labels for training, and are limited to few-shot inference for detection, requiring in-distribution samples that may not always be available. We learn discriminative style features without authorship labels by training a style encoder to reconstruct human-authored text from its machine-generated paraphrase; freezing a semantic encoder during training biases the style encoder to capture only the non-semantic features needed for reconstruction. We evaluate the learned representations via two detection strategies: a few-shot detector and a zero-shot DeepSVDD-based detector. Across benchmarks, our method matches or outperforms all baselines in the few-shot setting and, in the zero-shot regime, is competitive with fully supervised classifiers on in-distribution test data while generalizing better to unseen LLMs. Beyond detection, the learned representations generalize to unseen tasks, achieving competitive performance on authorship verification and fine-grained style discrimination despite never being trained on either objective.

This short paper introduces a stylometric interpretation method inspired by genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Each "gene" token's association with "phenotype" authorship is tested using logistic regression with multiple-comparison correction. Applied to English, German, and Russian corpora, the method detects statistically significant lexical markers distinctive of individual authors.

Deep Research agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited extraordinary potential in automated paper writing tasks. However, existing systems rely heavily on literature retrieval and synthesis through internet and local knowledge bases, often resulting research in lacking insight and creativity in social science. To address this issue, we propose "Memory-Augmented Social Simulation (MASS)", an innovative paradigm that leverages highly realistic and research-oriented social simulations to enhance the creativity and empirical founding of LLMs-generated research. Specifically, MASS integrates three core components: dynamic goal-path planning with multi-level social norm restraint to guide the simulation, a multi-disciplinary behavior dataset for agent memory cold-start, and a structured forgetting mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus curve. Together, these ensure simulation authenticity and provide a robust empirical foundation for generating innovative scholarly papers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, showing a 6.81% improvement in generation overall quality over foundation LLMs and 17.19% gain in Insight over strong baselines.

Author name disambiguation is a critical challenge in academic search systems, often addressed through from-scratch and real-time disambiguation approaches. However, current algorithms remain vulnerable to cumulative errors of paper-author assignments and overlook inconsistent assignments across different sources. Resorting to expert annotation is resource-intensive. To this end, this paper explores a new perspective for author name disambiguation: cross-source correction by leveraging inconsistent assignments across sources. We propose CrossND, a full-stack framework that integrates data refinement, cross-source reasoning, and test-time scaling. First, a chain-of-refinement pipeline denoises author profiles and produces more accurate paper-author matching probabilities. Second, a supervised fine-tuning process incorporates these refined signals and a probabilistic soft logic-based cross-correction module to infer the assignments of which sources are incorrect. Third, test-time scaling further enhances the accuracy and robustness of the predictions. Experiments on real-world datasets indicate that CrossND consistently outperforms 17 baselines by leveraging cross-source reasoning without human intervention.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored. This work explores the persuasive potential of LLMs through the framework of Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. It examines whether LLMs express illocutionary intent (i.e., pragmatic functions of language such as conveying knowledge, building trust, or signaling similarity) in ways that are comparable to human communication. We simulate online discussions between opinion holders and LLMs using conversations from the persuasive subreddit ChangeMyView. We then compare the likelihood of illocutionary intents in human-written and LLM-generated counter-arguments, specifically those that successfully changed the original poster's view. We find that all three LLMs effectively convey illocutionary intent -- often more so than humans -- potentially increasing their anthropomorphism. Further, LLMs craft sycophantic responses that closely align with the opinion holder's intent, a strategy strongly associated with opinion change. Finally, crowd-sourced workers find LLM-generated counter-arguments more agreeable and consistently prefer them over human-written ones. These findings suggest that LLMs' persuasive power extends beyond merely generating high-quality arguments. On the contrary, training LLMs with human preferences effectively tunes them to mirror human communication patterns, particularly nuanced communicative actions, potentially increasing individuals' susceptibility to their influence.

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

Authorship attribution research has traditionally focused on long-form, expressive texts; however, interactions with large language models (LLMs) are typically brief and task-driven prompts. This raises a fundamental question: do such prompts contain a stable, author-identifiable, and distinctive signal? We introduce PromptPrint, a systematic study of prompt-based identity, the hypothesis that a user's habitual vocabulary, syntax, and discourse patterns form a learnable behavioral biometric. Using 20,680 real prompts from 1,034 users, we establish three key findings. First, lexical representations significantly outperform semantic encoders, supporting the "lexical stability hypothesis": identity is primarily encoded in surface-level word choice rather than abstract intent. Second, stylometric features exhibit a "uniqueness-consistency paradox": users are highly distinctive across the population, yet behaviorally inconsistent across contexts. Third, adversarial analysis reveals a clear vulnerability spectrum: identity signals are robust to minor lexical perturbations but degrade substantially under semantic paraphrasing. Overall, our results demonstrate strong identification performance at scale, establishing prompt-based identity as a viable behavioral biometric. This work introduces a new perspective on user modeling in LLM interactions, with important implications for security and privacy. Data and code will be released upon the acceptance of our work.

As AI writing assistants become increasingly integrated into real-world drafting and revision workflows, many documents are no longer purely human-written or AI-generated, but instead result from progressive human-AI co-editing. However, existing AI-text detection benchmarks largely focus on final outputs and provide limited understanding of how AI authorship signals emerge, accumulate, or disappear throughout the revision process. We introduce OpAI-Bench, an operation-guided benchmark for studying progressive human-to-AI text transformation across document, sentence, token, and span granularities. Starting from human-written documents, OpAI-Bench constructs nine sequentially revised versions for each sample under predefined AI coverage levels and five representative AI edit operations, covering four domains while preserving complete authorship provenance at multiple granularities. The benchmark supports comprehensive evaluation with 8 document-level detectors, 7 sentence-level detectors, and 2 fine-grained token/span-level detectors. Experiments reveal that AI-text detectability is governed not only by the proportion of AI-edited content, but also by edit operation, domain, and cumulative revision history. Interestingly, we notice that mixed-authorship intermediate versions are often harder to detect than both fully human and heavily AI-edited endpoints, exposing non-monotonic detection patterns missed by existing benchmarks. OpAI-Bench provides a controlled testbed for analyzing whether, when, and how AI-assisted writing becomes detectable under realistic progressive editing scenarios. Our code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/OpAI-Bench.

Style representation learning is a powerful tool for authorship analysis and modeling writing style, yet the latent nature of learned representations makes them difficult to interpret. Recent work has attempted to explain these representations by generating natural language descriptions with large language models (LLMs) conditioned on input text. However, such descriptions are often prone to the LLM's biases and hallucinations, and they lack an explicit objective and practical utility. In this work, we propose a novel framework for interpreting style representations through style-eliciting prompts: natural language instructions designed to steer LLMs to generate text that reflects specific stylistic attributes. We curate 1,010 distinct style features spanning 26 stylistic categories and construct a dataset by prompting an LLM to generate text conditioned on these features. Using this data, we train a decoder to generate a style prompt from the style representation of the generated text. We evaluate our approach on three tasks: (1) recovering original style prompts from generated text, (2) generating text in the same style using the recovered prompts, and (3) steering LLM outputs to match the style of human-written texts. Experiments demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines that directly prompt LLMs with target text, achieving superior performance in both style description and style imitation. These results highlight that style-eliciting prompts can provide a practical and interpretable interface to stylistic information encoded in style representations.

Machine-generated text (MGT) attribution aims to identify the specific generator responsible for a given text, thereby providing fine-grained evidence for model accountability and misuse investigation. As new large language models continue to emerge, attribution models must continuously incorporate new generators while preserving their ability to recognize previously seen ones. Prior works have shown that this lifelong MGT attribution setting is challenging, and existing methods often struggle to achieve a stable balance between adapting to new classes and retaining old ones. To address this issue, we propose RidgeFT, a lightweight analytic update framework that does not rely on exemplar replay. RidgeFT trains a task-aware encoder on the initial generator set, stores compact class-wise sufficient statistics when each generator class is first observed, and then freezes the encoder for replay-free closed-form updates. It then suppresses generator-irrelevant variation through covariance calibration, improves representation capacity with fixed random features, and updates new classes through closed-form ridge regression based on class-level sufficient statistics. Across multi-topic evaluations with varying initial generator setups, RidgeFT consistently outperforms baselines. It achieves the best macro-F1 across domains, backbones, and incremental protocols, while also improving both old-class retention and new-class adaptation. These results suggest that feature-stable analytic updates provide a simple yet effective approach to lifelong MGT attribution.

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.

These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived. We show that large language models do not merely default to high-probability individual names when generating fictional experts: they produce correlated character ensembles, pairs and trios whose co-occurrence rates far exceed chance and are consistent across independent generations. These priors are model-family-specific (Claude: Elena Vasquez + Marcus Chen + Amara Okafor; Gemini: Aris Thorne + Lena Petrova; GPT: Elara Voss with no fixed partner), version-specific, and actively suppressed at model release boundaries, leaving dateable behavioral fingerprints in the content they produced. We document a downstream consequence at scale. On Zenodo, a CERN-operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates: server-side DataCite timestamps prove deliberate backdating, and 991 records were registered in a single month; these carry real DOIs registered in DataCite, making them harvestable by any scholarly aggregator that ingests DOI metadata. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families; publication dates on these records provide a reliable temporal proxy for model deployment windows.

Generative video models have achieved remarkable visual fidelity and temporal coherence, yet intentional camera control remains elusive. Existing frameworks treat camera motion as a byproduct of pixel synthesis, producing trajectories that are stochastic, spatially inconsistent, and indifferent to the human subject driving the scene. In this work, we present Auteur, a method for language-driven, human-centric camera framing in generative video. Our core insight is that professional filmmakers conceive shots not as world-space trajectories but as framings defined relative to the actor, encoding shot size, angle, and composition as functions of human pose and motion. We formalize this intuition as a human-centric camera parameterization and introduce a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that is convertible to standard 6-DoF camera parameters. A fine-tuned multimodal large language model then acts as a virtual director, mapping natural language descriptions and coarse human motion to sparse DSL keyframes that are deterministically interpolated into continuous camera trajectories, which are then provided as input to video generators. We train and evaluate Auteur on a new dataset of 34K aligned text, human motion, and DSL-annotated camera trajectories drawn from procedural synthesis and real-world movie footage from the CondensedMovies dataset. Auteur enables cinematographic framing of human-centered scenes, a capability largely absent in prior generative models. To assess this behavior, we propose new framing-focused metrics, and our experiments show that Auteur consistently outperforms existing methods. Project page is https://cyberiada.github.io/Auteur/

Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited. Existing RWG evaluations largely inherit summarization-oriented metrics, using lexical or semantic similarity to reference sections as proxies for quality. However, related work writing is fundamentally a citation-level scholarly positioning task: it requires selecting, organizing, and framing prior work to clarify how a target paper relates to, differs from, and contributes beyond existing research.As a result, models may generate coherent and semantically-relevant text while exhibiting academically critical failures, such as inappropriate citation selection or misplaced references, that conventional metrics do not capture.To this end, we introduce \textbf{RWGBench}, a benchmark that evaluates RWG from the perspective of citation decision-making rather than text similarity. RWGBench is constructed from a large-scale collection of 40,108 computer science papers and a retrieval corpus of 1.09 million documents, with a carefully curated test set comprising 100 papers and their corresponding published related work sections.We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that assesses citation selection, contextual appropriateness, organization, and discourse structure.Experiments reveal systematic limitations in current systems that are obscured by standard evaluations, while Oracle studies further disentangle retrieval-level and generation-level bottlenecks. Human evaluation further shows that our citation-centric metrics align substantially better with expert judgment than surface-level text metrics. RWGBench offers a citation-centric testbed for developing and evaluating related work generation systems that are better aligned with scholarly writing practices.

Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context. In a companion paper \citep{jack2026twomodes} we showed they can also recognize when they are currently acting on-policy, through the sharp entropy drop of assistant-mode generation. Both signals are tied to the Assistant persona that post-training mainly shapes. This paper widens the frame to cross-persona authorship judgement on Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We measure a matrix of authorship claim rates over a panel of evaluator and generator personas spanning librarian to dragon to Shakespeare, and make two claims. \emph{First}, on the Assistant's own row of the matrix, the Assistant's claim rate, the persona-vector distance from the Assistant in activation space, and the entropy gap between the Assistant's surprise on a persona's text and the persona's surprise on its own text are all tightly coupled. This extends the entropy signature of \emph{acting} from the companion paper to a retrospective signature of \emph{having acted}. \emph{Second}, this coupling fails off the Assistant's row: the natural symmetric extension of the entropy gap does not predict authorship for distinctive evaluators (pirate, dragon, Shakespeare); what does is asymmetric -- the evaluator's surprise compared to the Assistant's surprise on the same text, not to the generator's. We rule out the alternative that any persona could play this reference role by trying many candidate substitutes; none does. We interpret the asymmetry as the model performing an implicit Bayesian likelihood-ratio test against the Assistant as the canonical alternative hypothesis, with the persona-vector geometry of \citet{chen2025persona} (every persona a delta off the Assistant) ensuring that the Assistant is the only persona universally accessible to that test.

Investigating the degree to which large language models (LLMs) affect teaching and learning in universities can help identify strategies for integrating LLMs in a way that supports, rather than undermines, student learning outcomes. This study examined how varying levels of LLM assistance affect writing performance, engagement, and perceived authorship. We report a pilot study in which 24 college students were randomly assigned to write a short essay with no LLM access, limited access (<=3 prompts, responses capped at 100 words), or unlimited access. Overall essay quality was statistically indistinguishable across groups. Yet writing behavior and perceived authorship diverged sharply: students with limited access reported higher ownership (62.5% would submit the essay as independent work, vs. 25% in the unlimited group), stronger organizational gains, and more strategic, revision-focused prompting. The unlimited group spent more time writing, produced essays more similar to LLM output, and reported reduced creative expression. Our findings suggest that constraining, rather than banning, LLM access may preserve authorship confidence while retaining the scaffolding benefits of AI assistance.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in generating supportive responses for mental health queries, but improving their usefulness, empathy, and safety often requires substantial compute, expert input, and labeled data. At the same time, deploying proprietary, cloud-based models for mental health-related interactions raises important privacy and data-governance concerns, given the sensitivities. To address this challenge, we introduce LLUMI setup that can be hosted in-house within protected environments. LLUMI consists of two complementary components: a generation model (GM), which drafts supportive responses to mental health queries, and an improvement model (IM), which revises an initial human-crafted response. We leverage feedback signals from Reddit mental health communities, using community endorsement patterns such as upvotes and downvotes to construct chosen-rejected response pairs for Supervised Fine Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We further align LLUMI using human evaluation across five dimensions: readability, empathy, connection, actionability, and safety. Our results show that, despite relying on smaller open-source models rather than proprietary cloud-based GPT models, LLUMI achieves comparable performance across linguistic analyses and human evaluations. These findings suggest that open-source models, when trained with community-derived preference signals, can support high-quality mental health support assistance while offering a more privacy-preserving alternative for sensitive support contexts.

The double-edged sword of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires an effective triadic collaboration mechanism among LLMs, teachers and students, especially for K-12 education. By developing a triadic collaboration system to support K-12 writing learning, a multidimensional evaluation framework grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics and the suggestion trajectory tracing pipeline, this paper contributes a large-scale empirical dataset involving $57,954$ essays from $10,195$ students across $120$ schools over two years. Our findings confirm the efficacy of this system in improving writing quality through a strategic labor division: the LLM serves as a generative engine to mitigate teacher burnout, and the teacher acts as a pedagogical gatekeeper and bridge to guarantee feedback quality. While both LLM and teacher are critical for skill improvement, we uncover a ceiling effect where excessive linguistic expansion yields diminishing marginal utility. These suggest a dynamically adaptive LLM-teacher collaboration as student proficiency increases.

We study large-scale literature search from two complementary angles: improving the retrieval pipeline, and stress-testing the human reference list as an evaluation target. First, we implement a Deep Research pipeline that processes the full query paper and expands the retrieved results breadth-first along their bibliographies, and show that it substantially outperforms vanilla API-only search, raising recall on RollingEval-Jun25 (a 250-paper literature-search benchmark) from below 20% to above 80%. Second, we use a neutral LLM-as-a-judge to determine if human references are sound ground truth for the task. We find significant limitations: only 51% of human citations are judged moderately relevant or higher, against 86--88% for the strongest AI-based re-rankers. We study this gap on the OpenAlex co-authorship graph, finding that humans are 2.5x more likely than the best AI re-rankers to cite a direct collaborator. Together, our results argue against single-axis literature-search evaluation: recall, topical-relevance scoring, ranked-list diversity, and a co-authorship-distance diagnostic each measure complementary properties of citation quality and should be reported jointly.

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

Kazakh is underrepresented in resources for evaluating the safety behavior of large language models. We present KZ-SafetyPrompts, a Kazakh prompt dataset for safety evaluation across eleven categories covering common risk areas such as self-harm, violence, child exploitation, sexual content, racist content, radicalization, and regulated goods or illegal activities. The dataset contains 5,717 prompts written natively in Kazakh (Cyrillic), organized by category, with English translations for cross-lingual analysis. Prompts resemble realistic user queries, often in a teen or child style, and are phrased as intent prompts without procedural instructions. We document the writing protocol, labeling procedures (including borderline-case decision rules), and quality-control steps (schema standardization, completeness checks, and deduplication). We also align the categories with widely used safety taxonomies to support integration with existing evaluation pipelines. Baseline results with GPT-4o show an overall refusal rate of 28.2%, varying from 5.5% to 53.8% across categories, indicating that Kazakh prompts expose category-specific safety gaps not captured by English-only evaluation.

LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or scores quality with features designed for human-written reviews; no prior system detects deficiencies in LLM-generated reviews at the level of individual defect types. To bridge the gap, we introduce TADDLE, a Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews, together with the first expert-annotated benchmark for this task. Our benchmark comprises 1,800 reviews on 50 ICLR 2025 papers, multi-label-annotated by 18 domain experts against a taxonomy of six defect categories (plus a non-deficient label). TADDLE decomposes detection into four specialized analysis tools -- Verify, Correct, Complete, and Transform -- orchestrated by an agent; an integrator synthesizes their outputs into binary and multi-label classifications via two-stage semi-supervised learning. Extensive experiments show that TADDLE performs strongly on both binary detection and the multi-label classification task. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/AquariusAQ/TADDLE.

This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields. Using large-scale data on journal publications from Dimensions, we construct AI-likeness benchmarks based on differences between human-written and LLM-rephrased abstracts. We show that a pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications. In contrast, country-field-specific benchmarks attenuate such distortions and provide a more credible baseline for comparison. Applying these methods to publications in 2025 reveals that the pooled benchmark systematically overestimates AI use in certain countries and fields while underestimating it in others. These findings highlight the importance of context-aware measurement for accurate and equitable evaluation of AI use in science.

Function-vector (FV) heads are identified by the magnitude of their causal contribution to in-context rule tasks, and the resulting top set is treated as a single functional class. We show this hides a sign structure. Under a sign-preserving criterion (refined direct logit attribution, validated head by head with path patching) the FV population splits into two opposing groups: writers push the rule-correct logit up, cancellers push it down, and ablating both together moves the readout less than the sum of the two. The split is causal and reproducible. It holds in all but two of the fifteen (model, task) cells we test, spanning three architectures and six Pythia scales, and a sign-shuffle null rejects the single-class account in all but one of the six main cells. It is also invisible to magnitude-only ranking, which surfaces whichever group locally dominates and misses the other, so any function vector or ablation built that way silently averages a promoting and a suppressing mechanism. Cancellers are not attention sinks, induction heads, or copy-suppression heads, and their causal effect is larger than that of magnitude-matched non-FV controls. Zero-ablating them recovers $+0.13$ to $+0.29$ nats on the correct label in every main cell, and shifts accuracy by $+2$ to $+7$ pp in the same direction.

AI-associated lexical shifts have been documented mainly in Scientific English. We extend this work to 34 languages in the WMT News Crawl corpus, refining a split-halves continuation diagnostic that compares GPT-4.1 continuations with matched human gold-standard text. For each language, we derive ranked AI-overused lemmas using log prevalence ratios. We find substantial cross-lingual semantic convergence: semantically related concepts recur across typologically diverse languages, with 'emphasize'-type verbs appearing in 24 of 34 languages. Embedding-based and manual analyses support this pattern. We also examine diachronic uptake in news writing before and after ChatGPT's release. Tracking each language's top 20 AI-overused items, we find prevalence increases in 26 of 34 languages from 2020-2021 to 2023-2024, with a mean change of +15.1%, whilst matched baseline words show no comparable increase (-4.5%). In 10 languages with longer historical coverage, longitudinal analyses show post-2022 increases that exceed the modest shifts observed in earlier periods, though with smaller effect sizes than in Scientific English. We validate our approach extensively, including across seeds, model variants, data sizes, model families, and more. Our findings are consistent with the view that AI-associated lexical preferences extend beyond English and may exert cross-lingual homogenising pressure on global language use.

Evaluating whether large language models (LLMs) capture the structure of natural language beyond local fluency remains an open challenge. Existing evaluation methods, largely based on task performance or short-context behavior, provide limited insight into the long-range statistical organization of generated text. We propose a complementary evaluation framework based on repeated subsequences. By analyzing their distribution across scales and relating it to higher-order Rényi entropies, we probe how texts reuse previously established structure under finite-length conditions. Experiments on human-written texts and length-matched GPT-generated texts show that, while power-law models can describe restricted ranges of block length, the observed entropy growth is often equally or better characterized by logarithmic--power forms. Across datasets, natural language exhibits stable entropy-growth patterns over accessible ranges, with consistent average behavior despite variability across individual texts. In contrast, GPT-generated texts show systematic and statistically significant shifts in estimated exponents with model size. These results demonstrate that repeated-subsequence entropy provides a quantitative structural diagnostic that reveals systematic differences in long-range organization, distinguishing natural language from state-of-the-art LLM outputs beyond surface-level fluency.

Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization. Given their scale, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist expert counterspeech (CS) writing has gained interest, yet prior work has addressed these phenomena separately. We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur. We test three knowledge-driven generation strategies: first we prompt an LLM with fact-checkers' guidelines and fact-checking articles; secondly, with NGOs' guidelines and reports; thirdly, we create a mixed strategy that combines guidelines and documents from both. 23 experts revise the generated CS, which are assessed via human and automatic metrics. While LLMs produce adequate CS in 40% of cases, expert edits substantially improve naturalness, exhaustiveness, and adherence to guidelines. Based on the post-edited CS, the mixed strategy proves to be the most effective in crowdsourcing evaluation, pairing strong factual correction with stereotype mitigation and empathetic engagement. We release a dataset of hateful and misinformed claims with expert-verified CS and supporting knowledge.

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas, judgments, and claims it expresses. To this end, we propose Sem-Detect, an authorship detection method for peer reviews that operationalizes this principle by combining textual features with claim-level semantic analysis. Sem-Detect compares a target review against multiple AI-generated reviews of the same paper, leveraging the observation that different AI models tend to converge on similar points, while human reviewers introduce more unique and diverse ones. As a result, Sem-Detect is able to distinguish fully AI reviews from authentic human-written ones, including those that have been refined using an LLM but still reflect human judgment. Across a dataset of over 20,000 peer reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS conferences, Sem-Detect improves over the strongest baseline by 25.5% in TPR@0.1% FPR in the binary setting. Moreover, in the three-class scenario, we empirically show that LLM refinement preserves the semantic signals of human reviews, which remain distinct from the patterns exhibited by fully AI-generated text; as a result, fewer than 3.5% of LLM-refined human reviews are misclassified as AI-generated.

Has the style of scientific communication changed due to the growing use of large language models in the writing process? We address this question in the domain of Natural Language Processing by leveraging two data resources we create: a naturalistic corpus of over 37,000 papers from the ACL Anthology (2020-2024); and a synthetic dataset of 3,000 human-written passages and their LLM-generated improvements. We first implement a series of diachronic lexical analyses, showing that both word frequency and usage contexts have changed significantly over time, indicating semantic specialization in some cases and generalization in others. Broadening our perspective, we then model a range of more complex stylistic features and find that LLM-modified texts more frequently contain certain syntactic constructions, more complex and longer words and a lower lexical diversity. Finally, we connect these changes in writing practices to subjective reading experience through a pilot annotation study with 20 domain experts. They overall rate LLM-improved texts as more understandable and exciting, but also express negative qualitative attitudes towards LLMs, highlighting the strongly subjective effect of AI-assisted writing on reading experience.

Authorship attribution models fine-tuned with the same pretrained encoder, data, and loss can differ four-fold in performance depending only on their scoring mechanism. We use mechanistic interpretability tools to explain this gap. Stylistic features such as word length, punctuation density, and function-word frequency are similarly available at every layer in every model we probe, including an off-the-shelf control encoder, suggesting that the gap is not explained by their linear readability. Instead, causal intervention shows that the scorer appears to determine where the encoder consolidates authorship signal. Mean pooling forces consolidation by early to mid layers, while late interaction defers it to later layers. We further derive this difference from the gradient structure of each scorer, and training dynamics reveal distinct learning trajectories that follow from that difference.