mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

greCAPTCHA: Assessing Understanding as Evidence of Research Authorship Under Generative AI

arXiv 2609.20481 ↗First posted 17 Sep 2026cs.DL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with 31 researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of 0.90. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.

Builds on

14 of 58 references.

References · 14

  1. 2023WhisperX: Time-Accurate Speech Transcription of Long-Form Audiocited by 320
  2. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 195
  3. 2017Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 186
  4. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  5. 2024Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledgecited by 121
  6. 2018'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisionscited by 91
  7. 2024Human-LLM Compound System for Scientific Ideation through Facet Recombination and Novelty Evaluationcited by 39
  8. 2023CollabCoder: A Lower-barrier, Rigorous Workflow for Inductive Collaborative Qualitative Analysis with Large Language Modelscited by 34
  9. 2017Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Processcited by 33
  10. 2022Paper Plain: Making Medical Research Papers Approachable to Healthcare Consumers with Natural Language Processingcited by 23
  11. 2025Detecting LLM-Generated Peer Reviewscited by 18
  12. 2025AI-Assisted Writing Is Growing Fastest Among Less Established Scientists in Non-English-Speaking Countriescited by 4
2 more
  1. 2025Text Annotation via Inductive Coding: Comparing Human Experts to LLMs in Qualitative Data Analysiscited by 4
  2. 2026Querying Multimodal Scientific Papers with AI: Practices and Preferences Across Blind, Low-Vision, and Sighted Scientistscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.