Date
Publisher
arXiv
The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often focus on detecting whether a final artifact was generated by AI, while overlooking the conversation history that reveals human direction, AI contribution, corrections, validation, and traceability.
This paper introduces LLMography, a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, reproducibility, and auditability. By analogy with bibliography and webography, LLMography documents the dynamic trajectory of interaction between a human and a Large Language Model as a structured trace of Human-AI co-production.
We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates KPI reports including Prompt Quality Score, Human Direction Score, AI Dependency Level, Auditability Score, Final Output Traceability, Privacy Risk Level, and a recommended LLMography label. A preliminary exploratory evaluation was conducted on 19 anonymized audit reports from engineering students. Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability.
The paper also applies LLMography to its own writing process, classified as human-originated, human-directed, AI-assisted co-production. The findings suggest that AI transparency should move beyond output detection toward documenting the history of interaction.
Study at a glance
- Question: How can human–AI conversation histories be transformed into measurable indicators of collaboration quality, human direction, and auditability?
- Setting and data: 19 anonymized conversation audit reports from final-year engineering students working on academic, technical, and software tasks; 462 total turns.
- Method: Prototype system development and exploratory descriptive analysis of student conversation audit reports.
Why it matters
Debates often focus on detecting whether an artifact was generated by AI while overlooking conversation histories that reveal human direction, AI contribution, corrections, and traceability.
Key findings
- Most analyzed student interactions (14 of 19) were classified as Human–AI co-produced, showing iterative collaboration rather than passive AI generation.
- Student conversations averaged scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability, and 72.8/100 for Auditability.
- Most student interactions showed moderate AI dependency (15 of 19 reports), while all 19 reports were categorized as having low privacy risk.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
