Automatic Authorship Analysis in Human-AI Collaborative Writing
Open accessAbstract
As the quality of AI-generated text increases with the development of new Large Language Models, people use them to write in a variety of contexts.Human-AI collaborative writing poses a potential challenge for existing AI analysis techniques, which have been primarily tested either on human-written text only, or on samples independently generated by humans and AI.In this work, we investigate the extent to which existing AI detection and authorship analysis models can perform classification on data generated in human-AI collaborative writing sessions.Results show that, for AI text detection in the co-writing setting, classifiers based on authorship embeddings (Rivera-Soto et al., 2021) outperform classifiers used in prior work distinguishing AI vs. human text generated independently.However, these embeddings are not optimal for finer-grained authorship identification tasks: for authorship verification, n-gram based models are more robust to human-AI co-written text, and authorship attribution performance degrades compared to baselines that use human-written text only.Taken together, this suggests that the rise of human-AI co-written text will require adapting AI detection tools and authorship analysis techniques in the near future.We release our code at https://github.com/AARichburg/Human-AI_Authorship_Analysis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other researchers handle LLM-revised human texts and human-revised LLM texts as a single category, alongside purely human-written and purely LLM-generated texts, approaching human-LLM co-authored text authorship attribution as a three-class classification problem.
“Other researchers handle LLM-revised human texts and human-revised LLM texts as a single category, alongside purely human-written and purely LLM-generated texts, approaching human-LLM co-authored text authorship attribution as a three-class classification problem [Zhang et al., 2024;Richburg et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Richburg et al., 2024
Current work simplifies human-written text, LLM-generated content, and texts coauthored by humans and LLMs into three broad categories, without differentiating between individual human authors and specific LLMs.
“Current work simplifies human-written text, LLM-generated content, and texts coauthored by humans and LLMs into three broad categories, without differentiating between individual human authors and specific LLMs [Zhang et al., 2024;Richburg et al., 2024].”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Richburg et al., 2024
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges
Huang, B., Chen, C., & Shu, K. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3715073.3715076 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“Despite existing measures to prohibit the unethical use of LLMs, these restrictions could be evaded through prompt engineering and jail-breaking, posing risks of phishing and fraud scams.”
- Authors
- Richburg, A., Bao, C., & Carpuat, M.
- Affiliations
- American Superconductor (United States) (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
- Published
- 2024-05
- Pages
- 1845-1855
- ISSN
- 2522-2686
- OpenAlex
- W7131791693
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Handwritten Text Recognition Techniques
- Keywords
- authorship analysis, human-AI collaboration, collaborative writing, AI-generated text
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review