Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.19767

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

Hasan Amin·Zhuoran Lu·Ming Yin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI-text detection generally asks whether a machine wrote a text. As AI becomes an increasingly integral and accepted part of writing, the more relevant question is no longer whether AI was used, but how much of the text reflects human contribution. A prominent line of work estimates this by measuring how predictive a person's prompt is of the final text. We show that this measure can be easily manipulated. We introduce SPECIFICITY PADDING that simply asks the model to copy a few random IDs from the prompt, and that alone makes a title-only request look more human than one that supplies the article's key ideas. A context-swap audit then holds each document fixed, and only shows or hides the IDs to the evaluator. The score of the unchanged text swings by a third to half of its scale, and it rises for every document we test, on news and scientific abstracts, across varied LLMs from 3.8B to 753B parameters. The same articles can average 85\% human or 15\% human depending only on which prompt is on record, and even with no prompt at all, the output-only variant rewards the random strings themselves. An exact identity, the credit ledger, explains why. The score is a surprisal-weighted average over the text, so rare strings that the context makes copyable collect the credit, whatever they mean. A two-point bound marks a deeper limit. If the prompt could have been machine-written, every transcript-only method must, in the worst case, miss by half the contribution at stake. Likelihood-based scores alone cannot reliably establish human contribution without evidence of what the person added and how the text was produced.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hasan Amin, Zhuoran Lu, Ming Yin. 2026-10-14. Likelihood Is Not Authorship: Can We Reliably Measure Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Writing?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19767

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Beyond Size: How Gradients Shape Pruning Decisions in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) with billions of parameters are prime targets for network pruning, which removes some model weights without hurting performance. Prior approaches such as magnitude pruning, SparseGPT, and Wanda either concentrated solely on weights or integrated weights with activations for sparsity. However, they overlooked the informative gradients derived from pretrained LLMs. In this paper, we present a novel sparsity-centric pruning method for pretrained LLMs, termed Gradient-based Language Model Pruner (GBLM-Pruner). GBLM-Pruner leverages the first-order term of the Taylor expansion, operating in a training-free manner by harnessing properly normalized gradients from a few calibration samples to determine the pruning metric, and substantially outperforms competitive counterparts like SparseGPT and Wanda in multiple benchmarks. Intriguingly, by incorporating gradients, unstructured pruning with our method tends to reveal some structural patterns, which mirrors the geometric interdependence inherent in the LLMs' parameter structure. Additionally, GBLM-Pruner functions without any subsequent retraining or weight updates to maintain its simplicity as other counterparts. Extensive evaluations on LLaMA-series, Qwen-Series and Deepseek models across zero-shot, STEM-Reasoning and Coding benchmarks show that GBLM-Pruner surpasses magnitude pruning and Wanda by significant margins and performs competitively against SparseGPT which involves intensive weight updates. We further extend our approach on Vision Transformer and Vision Language Models. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/GBLM-Pruner.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

$π$-CoT: Prolog-Initialized Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Multi-Hop Question-Answering

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting significantly enhances large language models' (LLMs) problem-solving capabilities, but still struggles with complex multi-hop questions, often falling into circular reasoning patterns or deviating from the logical path entirely. This limitation is particularly acute in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings, where obtaining the right context is critical. We introduce Prolog-Initialized Chain-of-Thought ($π$-CoT), a novel prompting strategy that combines logic programming's structural rigor with language models' flexibility. $π$-CoT reformulates multi-hop questions into Prolog queries decomposed as single-hop sub-queries. These are resolved sequentially, producing intermediate artifacts, with which we initialize the subsequent CoT reasoning procedure. Extensive experiments demonstrate that $π$-CoT matches or outperforms standard RAG and in-context CoT on multi-hop question-answering benchmarks, with the largest gains on questions for which retrieval surfaces the necessary evidence.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Scaling Personality Control in LLMs with Big Five Scaler Prompts

We present Big5-Scaler, a prompt-based framework for conditioning large language models (LLMs) with controllable Big Five personality traits. By embedding numeric trait values into natural language prompts, our method enables fine-grained personality control without additional training. We evaluate Big5-Scaler across trait expression, dialogue generation, and human trait imitation tasks. Results show that it induces consistent and distinguishable personality traits across models, with performance varying by prompt type and scale. Our analysis highlights the effectiveness of concise prompts and lower trait intensities, providing a efficient approach for building personality-aware dialogue agents.

cs.CL↗