Authorship

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.

Large language models (LLMs) can convincingly imitate human writing styles, yet it remains unclear how much stylistic information is encoded in embeddings from any language model and retained after LLM rewriting. We investigate these questions in French, using a controlled literary dataset to quantify the effect of stylistic variation via changes in embedding dispersion. We observe that embeddings reliably capture authorial stylistic features and that these signals persist after rewriting, while also exhibiting LLM-specific patterns. These analytical results offer promising directions for authorship imitation detection in the era of language models.

Native Language Identification (NLI) is the task of determining an author's native language (L1) from their non-native writings. With the advent of human-AI co-authorship, non-native texts are routinely corrected and rewritten by large language models, fundamentally altering the linguistic features NLI models depend on. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of L1 traces across increasing degrees of editorial intervention. By processing 450 essays from the Write & Improve 2024 corpus through varying levels of grammatical error correction (GEC) and paraphrasing, we demonstrate that L1 attribution does not entirely depend on surface-level errors. Instead, the detection models leverage deeper L1 features: unidiomatic lexico-semantic choices, pragmatic transfer, and the author's underlying cultural perspective. We find that minimal edits preserve these structural traces and maintain high profiling accuracy. In contrast, fluency edits and paraphrasing normalize these L1 features, leading to a severe degradation in performance.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and agentic systems are moving software engineering from code-centric production toward intent-centric human-agent work in which natural language, repository context, tools, tests, and governance shape delivery. Prior studies examine code generation, AI pair programming, and software engineering agents, but less is known about how public technical discourse and peer-reviewed evidence together frame the profession's near-term transition. This study addresses that gap through a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) dominant and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) informed public-discourse and document analysis. The corpus combines peer-reviewed software engineering and AI literature, technical benchmarks, public talks and interviews, essays, product-facing technical announcements, and X-originated discourse from prominent AI and software engineering voices. Sources were organized through a corpus register, codebook, coding matrix, theme-to-source traceability table, DOI/reference audit, and reproducibility protocol. The analysis shows that GenAI lowers the cost of producing plausible code while increasing the importance of intent specification, context curation, architecture knowledge, verification, security, provenance, governance, and accountable human judgment. The findings indicate that software engineering is becoming less about isolated code authorship and more about supervising, validating, and governing socio-technical systems of humans, agents, tools, and evidence gates. This matters because speed-focused adoption can accumulate hidden technical debt and accountability gaps, whereas bounded autonomy can preserve quality, security, maintainability, and trust.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate plausible but false information across a wide range of contexts, yet the real-world magnitude and consequences of this hallucination problem remain poorly understood. Here we leverage a uniquely verifiable object - scientific citations - to audit 111 million references across 2.5 million papers in arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PubMed Central. We find a sharp rise in non-existent references following widespread LLM adoption, with a conservative estimate of 146,932 hallucinated citations in 2025 alone. These errors are diffusely embedded across many papers but especially pronounced in fields with rapid AI uptake, in manuscripts with linguistic signatures of AI-assisted writing, and among small and early-career author teams. At the same time, hallucinated references disproportionately assign credit to already prominent and male scholars, suggesting that LLM-generated errors may reinforce existing inequities in scientific recognition. Preprint moderation and journal publication processes capture only a fraction of these errors, suggesting that the spread of hallucinated content has outpaced existing safeguards. Together, these findings demonstrate that LLM hallucinations are infiltrating knowledge production at scale, threatening both the reliability and equity of future scientific discovery as human and AI systems draw on the existing literature.

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Stance detection identifies the attitude of a text author toward a given target. Recent studies have explored various LLM-based strategies for this task, from zero-shot prompting to multi-agent debate. However, existing works differ in data splits, base models, and evaluation protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We conduct a systematic comparison that evaluates five methods across two categories -- prompt-based inference (Direct Prompting, Auto-CoT, StSQA) and agent-based debate (COLA, MPRF) -- on four datasets with 14 subtasks, using 15 LLMs from six model families with parameter sizes from 7B to 72B+. Our experiments yield several findings. First, on all models with complete results, the best prompt-based method outperforms the best agent-based method, while agent methods require 7 to 12 times more API calls per sample. Second, model scale has a larger impact on performance than method choice, with gains plateauing around 32B. Third, reasoning-enhanced models (DeepSeek-R1) do not consistently outperform general models of the same size on this task.

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into writing processes, challenging traditional notions of authorship, responsibility, and intellectual contribution. Current disclosure practices usually indicate whether AI was used, but rarely explain how it was used, where it intervened, or how its output was reviewed. This paper proposes a faceted model for representing AI-assisted text production at the levels of documents, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The proposal introduces a core model based on Form, Generation, and Evaluation, and an extended model that adds Intent, Control, and Traceability. The model is positioned as a minimal operational baseline with extensibility toward higher-fidelity representations. A worked example based on the production of this article demonstrates applicability.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

We present a semantic-structural atlas of transportation research built from 120{,}323 papers across 34 peer-reviewed journals published between 1967 and 2025, roughly an order of magnitude larger than and a decade beyond Sun and Rahwan's~(2017) coauthorship study. We use OpenAlex and Crossref as open, CC0-licensed data sources, resolve author identity through OpenAlex author IDs, ORCID records, and manual alias resolution, and embed every paper with SPECTER2 with Arora-style whitening concatenated with concept TF--IDF and venue linear-discriminant projections. On this substrate we report three findings. First, Leiden on the author-level semantic k-nearest-neighbor graph yields 23 topic communities that agree only weakly with the 172 coauthor communities (normalized mutual information $0.23$), opening room for a predictive layer that neither source encodes alone. Second, a multiplex Leiden partition combining both edge types recovers 181 communities and localizes where collaboration and topic structure decouple. Third -- the paper's core methodological contribution -- we define \emph{phantom collaborators}, pairs of authors who are top-$K$ semantic neighbors yet $\geq 3$ hops apart in the coauthor graph, and show via a temporal hold-out (training cutoff 2019) that phantom pairs become real coauthors in 2020--2025 at a rate $16$ to $33$ times above random, popularity-weighted, and same-venue baselines, with a $68$-fold monotone gradient between the highest- and lowest-similarity buckets. All artifacts are released as a live, reproducible web atlas at https://choi-seongjin.github.io/transport-atlas/.

Handwritten Arabic manuscripts preserve the Arab world's intellectual and cultural heritage, and writer identification supports provenance, authenticity verification, and historical analysis. Using the Muharaf dataset of historical Arabic manuscripts, we evaluate writer identification from individual line images and, to the best of our knowledge, provide the first baselines reported under both line-level and page-disjoint evaluation protocols. Since the dataset is only partially labeled for writer identification, we manually verified and expanded writer labels in the public portion from 6,858 (28.00%) to 21,249 lines (86.75%) out of 24,495 line images, correcting inconsistencies and removing non-handwritten text. After further filtering, we retained 18,987 lines (77.51%). We propose a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based model with attention mechanisms for closed-set writer identification, including rare two-writer lines modeled as composite writer-pair classes. We benchmark fourteen configurations and conduct ablations across different feature extractors and training regimes. To assess generalization to unseen pages, the page-disjoint protocol assigns all lines from each page to a single split. Under the line-level protocol, a fine-tuned DenseNet201 with attention achieves 99.05% Top-1 accuracy, 99.73% Top-5 accuracy, and 97.44% F1-score. Under the more challenging page-disjoint protocol, the best observed results are 78.61% Top-1 accuracy, 87.79% Top-5 accuracy, and 66.55% F1-score, thus quantifying the impact of page-level cues. By expanding the Muharaf dataset's labeled subset and reporting both protocols, we provide a clearer benchmark and a practical resource for historians and linguists engaged with culturally and historically significant documents. The code and implementation details are available on GitHub.

Watermarking has emerged as a promising technique for tracing the authorship of content generated by large language models (LLMs). Among existing approaches, the KGW scheme is particularly attractive due to its versatility, efficiency, and effectiveness in natural language generation. However, KGW's effectiveness degrades significantly under low-entropy settings such as code generation and mathematical reasoning. A crucial step in the KGW method is random vocabulary partitioning, which enables adjustments to token selection based on specific preferences. Our study revealed that the next-token probability distribution plays an critical role in determining how much, or even whether, we can modify token selection and, consequently, the effectiveness of watermarking. We refer to this characteristic, associated with the probability distribution of each token prediction, as \emph{watermark strength.} In cases of random vocabulary partitioning, the lower bound of watermark strength is dictated by the next-token probability distribution. However, we found that, by redesigning the vocabulary partitioning algorithm, we can potentially raise this lower bound. In this paper, we propose SSG (\textbf{S}ort-then-\textbf{S}plit by \textbf{G}roups), a method that partitions the vocabulary into two logit-balanced subsets. This design lifts the lower bound of watermark strength for each token prediction, thereby improving watermark detectability. Experiments on code generation and mathematical reasoning datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of SSG.

AI research pipelines can now generate academic work that may satisfy existing peer review standards for quality, novelty, and methodological rigor. However, the publication system was built around the assumption that research is produced by human authors. It therefore lacks a clear way to evaluate work when the knowledge claim may be valid but the producer is partly or fully automated. This paper proposes a two-layer certification framework for AI-generated research. The first layer evaluates whether the knowledge claim is sound. The second layer evaluates the level of human contribution. This separation allows journals and conferences to assess pipeline-generated work more consistently without creating new institutions. The framework uses normative analysis, conceptual design, and dry-run validation against representative submission cases. It classifies human contribution into three categories: Category A, where the work is reachable by an automated pipeline; Category B, where human direction is required at identifiable stages; and Category C, where the work goes beyond current pipeline capability, especially at the problem-formulation stage. The paper also proposes dedicated benchmark slots for fully disclosed automated research. These slots would provide a transparent publication path and help reviewers calibrate judgments over time. The key argument is that publication has historically certified two things at once: that the knowledge is valid and that a human produced it. AI research pipelines separate these two claims. By decoupling knowledge certification from authorship attribution, the proposed framework responds to a structural change already underway. It can be implemented within existing editorial systems, works even when attribution is uncertain, and recognizes human frontier contribution based on epistemic value rather than human origin alone.

Learning robust representations of authorial style is crucial for authorship attribution and AI-generated text detection. However, existing methods often struggle with content-style entanglement, where models learn spurious correlations between authors' writing styles and topics, leading to poor generalization across domains. To address this challenge, we propose Explainable Authorship Variational Autoencoder (EAVAE), a novel framework that explicitly disentangles style from content through architectural separation-by-design. EAVAE first pretrains style encoders using supervised contrastive learning on diverse authorship data, then finetunes with a Variational Autoencoder (VEA) architecture using separate encoders for style and content representations. Disentanglement is enforced through a novel discriminator that not only distinguishes whether pairs of style/content representations belong to the same or different authors/content sources, but also generates natural language explanation for their decision, simultaneously mitigating confounding information and enhancing interpretability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of EAVAE. On authorship attribution, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on various datasets, including Amazon Reviews, PAN21, and HRS. For AI-generated text detection, EAVAE excels in few-shot learning over the M4 dataset. Code and data repositories are available online\footnote{https://github.com/hieum98/avae} \footnote{https://huggingface.co/collections/Hieuman/document-level-authorship-datasets}.

This article introduces two new measures for authorship attribution - Rank-Turbulence Delta and Jensen-Shannon Delta - which generalise Burrows's classical Delta by applying distance functions designed for probabilistic distributions. We first set out the theoretical basis of the measures, contrasting centred and uncentred z-scoring of word-frequency vectors and re-casting the uncentred vectors as probability distributions. Building on this representation, we develop a token-level decomposition that renders every Delta distance numerically interpretable, thereby facilitating close reading and the validation of results. The effectiveness of the methods is assessed on four literary corpora in English, German, French and Russian. The English, German and French datasets are compiled from Project Gutenberg, whereas the Russian benchmark is the SOCIOLIT corpus containing 639 works by 89 authors spanning the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries. Rank-Turbulence Delta attains attribution accuracy comparable with Cosine Delta; Jensen-Shannon Delta consistently matches or exceeds the performance of canonical Burrows's Delta. Finally, several established attribution algorithms are re-evaluated on the extended SOCIOLIT corpus, providing a realistic estimate of their robustness under pronounced temporal and stylistic variation.

In this study, we present the first comprehensive evaluation of modern LLMs - including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Gemini 1.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3, Llama 3.2, and BERT - across three core social media analytics tasks on a Twitter (X) dataset: (I) Social Media Authorship Verification, (II) Social Media Post Generation, and (III) User Attribute Inference. For the authorship verification, we introduce a systematic sampling framework over diverse user and post selection strategies and evaluate generalization on newly collected tweets from January 2024 onward to mitigate "seen-data" bias. For post generation, we assess the ability of LLMs to produce authentic, user-like content using comprehensive evaluation metrics. Bridging Tasks I and II, we conduct a user study to measure real users' perceptions of LLM-generated posts conditioned on their own writing. For attribute inference, we annotate occupations and interests using two standardized taxonomies (IAB Tech Lab 2023 and 2018 U.S. SOC) and benchmark LLMs against existing baselines. Overall, our unified evaluation provides new insights and establishes reproducible benchmarks for LLM-driven social media analytics. The code and data are provided in the supplementary material and will also be made publicly available upon publication.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

As autonomous LLM-based agents increasingly populate social platforms, understanding the dynamics of AI-agent communities becomes essential for both communication research and platform governance. We present the first large-scale empirical comparison of AI-agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. Structurally, we find that Moltbook exhibits extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross-community author overlap (33.8% vs. 0.5%). In terms of linguistic attributes, content generated by AI-agents is emotionally flattened, cognitively shifted toward assertion over exploration, and socially detached. These differences give rise to apparent community-level homogenization, but we show this is primarily a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the author level, individual agents are more identifiable than human users, driven by outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume. As AI-mediated communication reshapes online discourse, our work offers an empirical foundation for understanding how multi-agent interaction gives rise to collective communication dynamics distinct from those of human communities.

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

Computational stylometry studies writing style through quantitative textual patterns, enabling applications such as authorship attribution, identity linking, and plagiarism detection. Despite the relevance of language modeling to these tasks, the pre-training of modern large language models (LLMs) has been underutilized in authorship attribution and verification. We introduce an unsupervised framework that uses the log-probabilities of an LLM to measure style transferability between two texts. This framework takes advantage of the extensive Causal Language Modeling (CLM) pre-training, one-shot capabilities and scale of LLMs, avoiding explicit supervision. Our methods substantially outperform prompting-based unsupervised baselines in authorship verification at similar model sizes, and is competitive with or improves contrastive baselines in most settings with sufficient model scale. We further observe strong performance across non-English languages. The effectiveness of the proposed framework improves consistently with increasing model scale. In the case of authorship verification, we propose an additional mechanism that increases test-time computation to improve accuracy; enabling flexible trade-offs between computational cost and task performance.

Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been that commit messages describe human intent in natural language, and patches to code describe the changes that implement that intent. However, much of the previously collected data is noisy: commit messages are terse, human-written commits commingle several unrelated edits, and many commits come from simple, rule-based bots. The recent adoption of software engineering agents changes this landscape. Code changes \emph{co-authored} by humans and agents are often accompanied by substantially more explicit natural-language descriptions of intent and rationale. Moreover, when these changes land in public repositories, they are implicitly filtered by humans: maintainers discard low-quality commits to their projects. We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.8M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent across public GitHub projects up to early October 2025. We describe the identification and curation pipeline, quantify adoption trends of these agents, and analyze the structural properties of the edits. Finally, we show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack can outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora, highlighting the potential of using public data from software engineering agents to train future code-editing models.

This paper documents Project Rachel, an action research study that created and tracked a complete AI academic identity named Rachel So. Through careful publication of AI-generated research papers, we investigate how the scholarly ecosystem responds to AI authorship. Rachel So published 10+ papers between March and October 2025, was cited, and received a peer review invitation. We discuss the implications of AI authorship on publishers, researchers, and the scientific system at large. This work contributes empirical action research data to the necessary debate about the future of scholarly communication with super human, hyper capable AI systems.