Temporal Text Classification with Large Language Models

Reproducibility is essential for scientific research, yet prior work shows that LLM outputs vary with hardware and batching. We identify an overlooked factor: the hidden injection of the current date into system prompts, which users cannot control and which changes every day. Across 9 recent LLMs and 6 datasets spanning multiple-choice QA (MCQA), math reasoning, code generation, and machine translation, performance varies solely with the current date, with deltas of up to 6% on MCQA, 14% on math reasoning, 7% on code generation, and 2.84 BLEU on machine translation. Model rankings also shift, affecting leaderboards. This date effect exceeds other sources of non-determinism, such as batch size and numerical precision. Standard prompting techniques -- chain-of-thought and few-shot prompting -- do not reduce the sensitivity; chain-of-thought even amplifies it. Our findings underscore the need for careful evaluation protocols to ensure reproducibility and fair comparisons in LLM research.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in daily applications, from content generation to code writing, where each interaction treats the model as stateless, generating responses independently without memory. Yet human writing is inherently longitudinal: authors' styles and cognitive states evolve across months and years. This raises a central question: can LLMs reproduce such temporal structure across extended time periods? We construct and publicly release a longitudinal dataset of 412 human authors and 6,086 documents spanning 2012--2024 across three domains (academic abstracts, blogs, news) and compare them to trajectories generated by three representative LLMs under standard and history-conditioned generation settings. Using drift and variance-based metrics over semantic, lexical, and cognitive-emotional representations, we find temporal flattening in LLM-generated text. LLMs produce greater lexical diversity but exhibit substantially reduced semantic and cognitive-emotional drift relative to humans. These differences are highly predictive: temporal variability patterns alone achieve 94% accuracy and 98% ROC-AUC in distinguishing human from LLM trajectories. Our results demonstrate that temporal flattening persists regardless of whether LLMs generate independently or with access to incremental history, revealing a fundamental property of current deployment paradigms. This gap has direct implications for applications requiring authentic temporal structure, such as synthetic training data and longitudinal text modeling.

Automated detection of LLM-generated texts (LGTs) is critical, yet dedicated detectors often struggle to generalize across domains and models. While general-purpose LLMs offer flexible zero-shot authorship classification with explanatory rationale, their detection behavior, especially regarding self-detection versus cross-detection across model generations, remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate 15 LLMs spanning three model generations as both generators and detectors. Using a benchmark of 1,000 human-written texts and 15,000 LGTs (1,000 per model), we collected over 233,000 binary classifications alongside natural-language explanations. Our results reveal that detection efficacy is primarily driven by detector capability rather than generator provenance, although outputs from newer generators remain notably harder to detect. Crucially, statistical comparisons show no systematic advantage or disadvantage for self-detection across models. Error analysis further exposes generational bias shifts: first-generation detectors under-detect LGTs (high false-negative rates), second-generation detectors over-flag human texts (high false-positive rates), and the latest models achieve balanced trade-offs. Finally, we highlight significant inconsistencies in how different LLMs apply textual cues to justify their decisions. Code: https://github.com/hyyuan/detect-llm-generated-texts.