Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.13660

Who Wrote This? Turing, Total Variation, and the Mathematics of AI-Text Detection

Abstract

What can a finished text reveal about the process that produced it? Drawing on Turing's imitation game and statistical decision theory, this article examines the limits of AI-text detection as an inference from a completed object to an unobserved history. For two known source distributions with equal prior probabilities, a standard identity gives the minimum average classification error as half their probability overlap. This overlap is one minus their total variation distance. Perfect detection therefore requires nonoverlapping distributions; useful discrimination does not. In practice, the problem is harder: human and machine writing form changing families of distributions, posterior probabilities depend on base rates, and ``AI-written'' becomes ambiguous when people and software contribute to the same text. Turing's interrogator can ask another question; a detector restricted to finished prose cannot. Distinguishability, source attribution, authentication, and compliance are different inferential tasks. The paper's own documented human-AI provenance shows what a production history can reveal that a binary label cannot.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Santiago Schnell. 2026-09-12. Who Wrote This? Turing, Total Variation, and the Mathematics of AI-Text Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13660

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Come for the vibe, stay for the math

This article describes our experiences in mathematical outreach over the past decade. We talk about specific activities, but also general principles that we've learned along the way.

math.HO

Graduate Mathematics in the Age of AI: Forming Mathematicians for Original, Independent, and Responsible Inquiry

Artificial intelligence can increasingly produce plausible, sophisticated mathematical material faster than a developing graduate student can understand or verify it. A sophisticated result or paper draft therefore becomes weaker evidence of the student's own mathematical development. This creates a formation gap between output and personal capacity, and a trust gap between a convincing argument and warranted acceptance. The formation gap can persist even when the student understands the output: understanding a supplied argument does not by itself establish the capacity to initiate and direct inquiry. These gaps are not the whole story. AI can also help students explore examples, compare approaches, enter unfamiliar areas, and undertake ambitious research. The task is to design an apprenticeship that realizes these possibilities while developing substantive mathematical command. The central purpose of a mathematics PhD is to form mathematicians capable of original, independent, and responsible inquiry, including inquiry conducted with AI. This document develops that objective through four connected capacities: competence, judgment, independence, and responsibility. It distinguishes a work's contribution to mathematics from the evidence it provides of a student's formation; explains how a known answer can initiate rather than end creative inquiry; and proposes changes in learning activities, assessment, doctoral originality, advising, and institutional support. Purposeful independent work and ambitious AI-assisted research are complementary parts of the model. Its recommendations include proportionate contribution statements, recognition of advising costs, and staged pilots evaluating both mathematical ability and effective human--AI collaboration. The aim is not to preserve an inherited sequence of training, but to improve mathematical formation as mathematical practice changes.

math.HO