cd /news/artificial-intelligence/who-wrote-it-is-not-enough-detecting… · home › topics › artificial-intelligence › article
[ARTICLE · art-146574] src=arxiv.org ↗ pub= topic=artificial-intelligence verified=true sentiment=· neutral

Who Wrote It Is Not Enough: Detecting Who Contributed the Insight

A new arXiv paper (2610.07365v1) introduces "Insight Provenance," a task for identifying whether a peer-review insight originates from a human, an LLM, or a hybrid contribution, built from 4,057 scientific papers and 12,660 human reviews with sentence-level annotations. The authors report that models exploiting linguistic and textual-authorship shortcuts score well on raw data but degrade substantially under progressively debiased evaluation, so they propose a two-stage adversarial framework that suppresses shortcut signals while preserving provenance-relevant information. The analysis finds AI insights predominantly stay close to generic or paper-provided information, whereas human insights more often introduce external knowledge and independent judgment.

by read1 min views1 publishedOct 7, 2026

arXiv:2610.07365v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLMs increasingly assist scientific writing and peer review, detecting who wrote the text is no longer sufficient: we need to determine who contributed the underlying insight. We introduce Insight Provenance, the task of identifying whether a review insight originates from a human, an LLM, or their hybrid contribution. We construct InsightProv-v0 from 4,057 scientific papers and 12,660 human reviews, simulating different levels of LLM involvement with GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek and annotating provenance at the sentence level. We show that strong performance on raw data can be misleading, as models exploit linguistic and textual-authorship shortcuts that degrade substantially under progressively debiased evaluation. We therefore propose a two-stage adversarial framework that suppresses shortcut signals while preserving provenance-relevant information. Beyond detection, extensive analyses reveal what makes intellectual authorship identifiable: paper grounding and neighboring review context provide complementary provenance signals, while human, hybrid, and AI insights systematically differ in their information sources and failure modes. Most strikingly, AI insights predominantly remain close to generic or paper-provided information, whereas human insights more often introduce external knowledge and independent judgment. These findings suggest that while wording can be rewritten by an LLM, the provenance of an idea leaves a deeper and more persistent signal.

── more in #artificial-intelligence 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @arxiv 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
→ Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host ✓
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/who-wrote-it-is-not-…] indexed:0 read:1min 2026-10-07 · —