The study investigates whether AI assistance leaves a temporal fingerprint in writing and programming tasks. By analyzing keystroke-level data from three corpora, the authors find that AI contributions appear in distinct bursts and that temporal patterns can almost perfectly distinguish wholesale delegation from authentic work, though ordinary collaboration remains hard to detect. The research suggests that process visibility could serve as a basis for academic integrity checks.
arXiv:2609.05677v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Lifelong LLM agents increasingly rely on external skill artifacts as one element for preserving and reusing capabilities over time. These skills (usu...
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new measure of delegated exposure that captures whether workers actually commit tasks to AI within structured workflows. Using semantic embeddings of 888,000 agent skill specifications from GitHub and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those most vulnerable to pre-AI automation, that AAI correlates more with technical capability than with current LLM use, and that for lower‑educated occupations AAI rises with wages while it falls for higher‑educated, high‑earning workers. These patterns also appear in an independent corpus from the Manus Skills Marketplace.
The increasing use of large language models for code generation calls for methods that distinguish purely human-written code from AI-involved code: files in which any part, however small, was generate...
The paper introduces a multi-granularity framework for detecting AI involvement in code, distinguishing human-written from AI-generated or modified files and localizing the specific lines or blocks. It uses a frozen code language model with low-rank adapters trained on machine- and human-written data, producing per-token log-likelihood ratios that feed lightweight heads for line, block, and file-level predictions. Evaluated on thousands of mixed-authorship files, the method achieves high macro F1 scores and maintains low false-positive rates on real human code.
arXiv:2608. 11256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct.
The paper argues that current AI‑text detection methods, which estimate human contribution by measuring how predictive a user’s prompt is of the final text, can be easily manipulated. By introducing SPECIFICITY PADDING—adding random IDs to the prompt—the authors show that a title‑only request can appear far more human than one containing the article’s key ideas, and that scores can swing dramatically when the evaluator’s view of the prompt is altered. Across a range of large language models, the same documents can be scored as 85 % human or 15 % human depending solely on the prompt used, revealing a fundamental limitation of likelihood‑based metrics for reliably measuring human authorship. whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that likelihood‑based scores cannot reliably establish human contribution without additional evidence of what the person added and how the text was produced."
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new metric that captures whether workers actually delegate tasks to AI within their workflows, rather than merely measuring potential AI applicability. Using 53,000 agent skill specifications and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those previously deemed most at risk, that AAI aligns more closely with AI’s capabilities than current usage, and that adoption peaks at mid‑wage, bachelor’s‑level occupations while declining at both ends of the wage and education spectrum. The study highlights that technical availability explains much of the variation, but other factors—such as resistance to specification or professional discretion—also influence who adopts AI. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that actual AI adoption patterns differ from prior risk assessments, indicating that factors beyond technical feasibility shape who delegates to AI, which has implications for workforce planning and policy."
arXiv:2609.36544v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI has changed how students produce writing assignments. The final artifact is no longer sufficient to understand the process through whic...
arXiv:2606. 29437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them?
arXiv:2604. 20711v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed to synthesize large-scale public input in policy consultations and participatory processes.
arXiv:2606. 06481v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
The paper introduces Soei, a structured observability framework for AI coding agents, addressing the need to track what work was done, by whom, and whether it is finished. It evaluates an existing tool, Agenttrail, revealing inconsistencies and security gaps, and presents empirical findings from 45 real coding-agent sessions, highlighting issues such as unverified code edits and credential exposure. Soei comprises an event schema, hash‑chained ledger, PROV‑aligned graph, and verification layer, achieving efficient storage, fast verification, and tamper detection on the same dataset.