# Process Matters more than Output for Distinguishing Humans from Machines

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06524 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06524/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07780/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02003/) (2023)
- [Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learn](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10178/) (2019)
- [AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14752/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23674/) (2025)
- [Breaking reCAPTCHAv2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.08831/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as Large Language Models and autonomous agents are deployed in online settings. Existing approaches evaluate whether a system can produce responses indistinguishable from those of a human. This approach follows the focus on the output of a machine, as suggested by Alan Turing. Cognitive science provides an alternative approach: considering the process by which that behavior is produced. To evaluate whether processes can reliably distinguish humans from machines, we introduce a process-based framework, the Process Turing Test, and evaluate it across a battery of cognitive tasks spanning decision-making, working memory, and planning. These tasks, such as mental rotation and sequence prediction, yield process-level measures complementing conventional measures of overall task performance. We also include multiple CAPTCHA tasks in the battery. Across the battery, process-level features provide substantially stronger discriminative signal than performance metrics alone, reliably distinguishing humans from agents even when task performance is matched (process-based classifier AUC = 0.88). We also conducted a controlled red-teaming study comparing off-the-shelf frontier agents (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro), Centaur (LLM fine-tuned on 10.7M human decisions), and two task-specific fine-tuning methods: action-level supervised fine-tuning (A-SFT) and process-level fine-tuning (P-SFT), which directly optimizes process features. We find that broad fine-tuning on human choices makes task processes more human-like relative to off-the-shelf frontier agents, and task-specific P-SFT further improves human-like behavioral mimicry, though this advantage largely disappears under cross-task transfer. These results highlight process specification as a central bottleneck in achieving human-like cognitive processes in machines.