Research
Does AI Assistance Leave a Temporal Fingerprint? Detecting Overreliance in AI-Assisted Writing and Programming
arXiv:2609.17883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished
arXiv:2609.17883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 geq 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.
Related
- Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming
- When Less is More: Understanding When Token Filtering Helps and Fails in AI-generated Text Detection
- Detecting Hallucinations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation through Grounding-Aware Sensitivity by Perturbation (GASP)
- Controllable Narrative Rendering for Enhanced Assisted Writing
Source: arXiv cs.AI | 2026-09-17