Atharva Mehta

Atharva Mehta, Rajesh Kumar, Aman Singla et al.

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools has heightened concerns regarding academic integrity, as students increasingly engage in dishonest practices by copying or paraphrasing AI-generated content. Existing plagiarism detection systems, which rely primarily on text-intrinsic features, are ineffective at identifying AI-assisted or paraphrased submissions. Our prior conference work introduced a behavioral detection approach that leverages how text is produced, captured through keystroke dynamics, in addition to what is written, enabling discrimination between genuine and assisted writing. That study, conducted on keystroke data from 40 participants, demonstrated promising performance. This paper substantially extends and systemizes the prior work by: (1) expanding the dataset with 90 additional participants and introducing an explicit paraphrasing condition to model realistic plagiarism strategies; (2) formalizing a threat model and evaluating detection under adversarial and deception-oriented scenarios; and (3) performing a comprehensive empirical comparison against state-of-the-art text-only detectors and human evaluators. Experimental results demonstrate that keystroke-based models significantly outperform text-based approaches in practical deployment settings, while revealing limitations under more challenging adversarial conditions.

Debnath Kundu, Atharva Mehta, Rajesh Kumar et al.

The transition to online examinations and assignments raises significant concerns about academic integrity. Traditional plagiarism detection systems often struggle to identify instances of intelligent cheating, particularly when students utilize advanced generative AI tools to craft their responses. This study proposes a keystroke dynamics-based method to differentiate between bona fide and assisted writing within academic contexts. To facilitate this, a dataset was developed to capture the keystroke patterns of individuals engaged in writing tasks, both with and without the assistance of generative AI. The detector, trained using a modified TypeNet architecture, achieved accuracies ranging from 74.98% to 85.72% in condition-specific scenarios and from 52.24% to 80.54% in condition-agnostic scenarios. The findings highlight significant differences in keystroke dynamics between genuine and assisted writing. The outcomes of this study enhance our understanding of how users interact with generative AI and have implications for improving the reliability of digital educational platforms.