Authorship

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and consent. The final dataset included 56 analyzable responses from authors of 40 papers; closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, and 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers. This perceived added value translated into action: 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version. However, the authors did not treat the AI review as equivalent to a human review. They generally trusted it less than the human reviews and found human feedback clearer, even though 25.0% described at least some human reviews as not very useful. Reported problems with the AI review were usually limited: 51.8% reported minor inaccuracies, while 16.1% reported clearly incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant comments. Support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool: 96.4% said they would use AI as an internal review tool before future submissions, 89.3% preferred advance notice that AI would be used in review, and 76.8% favored explicit consent before use.

Chatbots have long been explored as tools to support learning, and recent advances in large language models have significantly expanded the availability of platforms for educators to author AI tutoring chatbots. Yet effective authorship demands more than writing a system prompt; it requires educators to act as learning designers, AI interaction designers, and QA engineers. In practice, however, teachers rarely fulfill these roles. Our formative study found that virtually none systematically tested their bots before deploying them to students. To address this gap, we present PromptDecipher, a system that restructures the authoring workflow around a direct correction-based interaction rather than writing abstract system prompts, teachers interact with a live chat preview and edit undesirable bot responses. An automated pipeline then analyzes the correction, proposes a targeted system prompt rewrite, and validates the change across pre-defined test scenarios. This enforces QA as a first-class activity and scaffolds teachers in roles they would otherwise skip. PromptDecipher will be deployed in an AI for Educators course enrolling hundreds of higher-education instructors. A live prototype (https://teacher-prompting.vercel.app/), an anonymized codebase (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/teacher-prompting-2EDF/), and anonymized demo (https://tinyurl.com/las-prompt-decipher-demo) are available via links in the footnote.