cs.CLJun 24, 2026

Story Operators: Decomposing the Original \to Sequel Transformation in Embedding Space

Authors: W. Frederick Zimmerman

Organizations: Nimble Books LLC

Abstract

I treat a book as a point in a sentence-embedding space and a literary transformation as an operation on points. Given an original novel and its sequel, I ask what it takes, geometrically, to turn the first into the second. Using all-mpnet-base-v2 paragraph embeddings drawn from a precomputed index of the PG19 corpus, I form the displacement d=xˉseqxˉorigd=\bar{x}_{\rm seq}-\bar{x}_{\rm orig} and greedily decompose it along a content basis obtained by PCA over the two books' own paragraphs. Each component is an interpretable axis anchored by real passages at its poles. Across thirteen verified author pairs from Project Gutenberg, the decomposition reveals a small taxonomy of sequels: formulaic (a tiny, low-rank change: Doyle's Holmes collections, d=0.12\|d\|=0.12), concentrated (one dominant axis: Alcott's Little Women \to Little Men, 75% on a single move), and compositional (many small axes: Twain, Burroughs's Barsoom, Nesbit). For the canonical case, Tom Sawyer \to Huckleberry Finn, the dominant recovered axis is structural -- the collapse of sheltering domesticity into a picaresque road -- rather than the famous surface themes of vernacular voice or slavery, which ride later, smaller axes; and the transformation routes through adventure-journey space rather than diluting toward generic realism. I corroborate the recovered geometry against Twain's documented authorial intent (his 1875--76 letters to Howells), which names the first-person picaresque move years in advance, and I quantify, with an explicit representation caveat, how much of the realized transformation his stated intentions span. All computations are reproducible from the released scripts and data.

Explore similar work

Jul 30, 2026cs.CL

Creative Transformation in Literary Texts: Modelling Change Across Representational Levels

Creativity is often framed as the production of novelty, yet many cultural works emerge through transformation of earlier artifacts and not through isolated invention. Drawing on theories of imitation by Gabriel Tarde and James Mark Baldwin, this paper models creativity as selective transformation across multiple levels of textual representation. We introduce a multi-level framework that compares literary texts across lexical, semantic, conceptual, structural, and narrative dimensions using directional alignment and control calibrated similarity measures. Applying the model to historically documented literary relationships, we show that different pairs preserve source structure at different representational levels while diverging in others. These transformation profiles provide a quantitative method for characterizing how imitation persists and where creative divergence occurs within literary works.
Ioana-Roxana Boriceanu, Liviu P. Dinu
Aug 12, 2026cs.CL

Novels generated by language models show compressed formal variation

While large language models can generate entire novels, there is little information about the level of formal variation in their output over many generations. Rather than asking whether individual passages can be identified as AI-generated, this study asks whether repeated AI generation can produce the same range of diversity which is found across human corpora. This paper contrasts six corpora based on generation source and target style: twenty novels generated using GPT-5.5 Thinking in a nineteenth-century British realist style, twenty novels generated using Qwen3-14B in a nineteenth-century British realist style, twenty novels generated using each of these models in a contemporary zero style, 205 nineteenth-century human-written British novels, and sixty-five contemporary human-written Zero-Style novels. At the document level, the research includes MATTR-500, Shannon entropy, average sentence length, readability, and punctuation rate measurements. The most robust and reliable result is compression of sentence structure. Repeated generations produce novels that vary far less from one another in sentence structure than human novels do. Compression is also present in the measures of readability, punctuation, and sentence length variability within novels. Lexical measures tend to be similarly compressed, with the exception of Qwen Zero-Style MATTR. Despite having distinct mean stylistic profiles, GPT and Qwen lack a stable pattern of cross-measure correlation. This article therefore distinguishes between variance overclosure, which represents a limited formal range between novels, and a more specific phenomenon of correlational overclosure. This means that an individual AI-generated novel may resemble human fiction stylistically, while a collection of AI-generated novels occupies a much narrower formal range.
Mehdy Sedaghat Payam, Justin Quinn
Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

Contrastive Projection: Reading Transformer Internals by Differencing Logit Lenses

Reading a transformer's internal states in token space is easy to do and hard to trust: a logit lens on a single hidden state is dominated, at intermediate layers, by the generic tokens the model would predict for almost any input. We read the difference instead. Subtracting two closely matched prompts' hidden states and projecting through the unembedding cancels the shared component and surfaces what separates them, an operation equivalent to reading a RepE/ActAdd steering vector through a logit lens. Built into a training-free tracer that reads at every position, sub-layer, and head and averages over designed baselines, it traces a compound- noun MLP->attention chain in Phi-2, confirmed there by activation patching, with the same distinction recovered across three architectures by readout and probe rather than by patching; it reads what retrieval surfaces for real versus fictional entities, and reads metaphor as a set of domain-to-domain mappings rather than a single figurativity feature. A cross-seed control marks the boundary: across five networks differing only in initialization, the same distinction surfaces as almost entirely different tokens (top-10 overlap 0.08). What a computation looks like in token space is network-specific; the distinction it draws is not
Olli Tuomi