Understanding how information is distributed over time is fundamental to modeling natural language. While existing empirical studies primarily rely on post-hoc analysis of information-theoretic metrics, such as surprisal, little is known about the generation processes under the surface. We propose a novel approach for addressing this gap using the tool of neural temporal point processes (TPPs) by modeling the key information-bearing events in text sequences with learnable event intensity functions. Our model takes the history of event intervals and the contextual semantic representations from LLMs as input, and predicts the future arrival times for two types of events: new-word and high-surprisal-token. The experimental results reveal an interesting distinction in event intensities: LLMs tend to produce new words at significantly higher rates than humans, while high-surprisal tokens do not exhibit the difference. A decaying pattern of intensity over time is found in new-word events for both humans and LLMs, but not in high-surprisal-token events. Our findings revisit and extend previous studies that use simpler methods; provide supplementary evidence for theories about constrained context representation inherent in human language production; and find a new angle to view human and LLM generation differences.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our RNN-based neural TPP framework. (a) Event extraction from text: new-word or high-surprisal-token. (b)Neural TPP architectures that encode inter-event intervals, semantic embeddings, and positional encodings to estimate the cumulative hazard function.
Dataset
Event Type
Text Source
Conventional TPP
Neural Baseline w/o LLM
Neural TPP w/o LLM
Neural Baseline w/ LLM
Neural TPP w/ LLM
Speech
New-word
Human
1.890
2.135
1.779
1.867
1.726
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
1.256
1.226
1.086
1.069
1.019
GPT-4.1
1.299
1.286
1.118
1.043
1.009
Qwen-Plus
1.162
1.154
1.000
0.878
0.859
High-surprisal- token
Human
-
2.202
1.888
1.919
1.780
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
-
2.201
1.785
1.764
1.624
Table 1: Comparison of predicting performance (MAE ↓ ) among conventional TPPs, neural baselines, and neural TPPs, with and without LLaMA-3.1-8B semantic embeddings. Conventional TPPs for high-surprisal-token are left empty due to the low rate of successful fit.
Figure 2: Estimated conditional intensity against time step for new-word events from conventional and neural TPPs. Both TPPs rely solely on temporal information without semantic embedding input. Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 3: Conditional intensity curves across event types and datasets, estimated from neural TPPs with semantic embeddings (LLaMA-3.1-8B). Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Model
Accuracy
Macro F1
AUROC
Speech Dataset
Claude-sonnet-4.5
0.9450
0.9450
0.9913
GPT-4.1
0.9650
0.9650
0.9932
Qwen-plus
0.9800
0.9800
0.9988
Writing Prompt Dataset
Claude-sonnet-4.5
0.8535
0.8535
0.9263
Table 2: Human vs. LLM classification results based on features extracted from the intensity curves.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
RMS ↓
R ↑
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Speech Dataset
Human
0.001191
0.000191
0.004748
0.991702
0.963751
0.997403
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
0.001753
0.000364
0.005538
0.990342
0.974717
0.996734
GPT-4.1
0.001415
0.000199
0.004075
0.990706
0.974341
0.997319
Qwen-Plus
0.001392
0.000191
0.005521
0.989525
0.974030
0.997438
Appendix
Table 3: Goodness-of-fit evaluation of the Conventional TPP model when events are defined as new words. The metrics include the Residual Mean Square (RMS) of the regression and the correlation ( R ) between fitted and observed data.
Figure 4: Estimated conditional intensity functions with LLaMA-3.1-8b-derived high-surprisal-token events on the both datasets. Both subplots utilize RNN-based neural TPPs without LLM embeddings (w/o LLM). Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 5: Estimated conditional intensity functions with new-word events without lemmatization on the both datasets. Both subplots utilize RNN-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via LLaMA-3.1-8B. Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Dataset
Event Type
Text Source
RNN-based
Transformer-based
LLaMA- 3.1-8B
LLaMA- 3.2-1B
Qwen- 3-0.6B
LLaMA- 3.1-8B
LLaMA- 3.2-1B
Qwen- 3-0.6B
Speech
New-word
Human
1.726
1.718
1.729
1.605
1.594
1.611
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
1.019
1.018
1.024
0.972
0.976
0.981
GPT-4.1
1.009
1.005
1.011
0.962
0.966
0.966
Qwen-Plus
0.859
0.863
0.871
0.828
0.832
0.834
High-surprisal- token
Human
1.780
1.865
1.820
2.070
2.010
1.802
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of predicting performance (MAE ↓ ) for RNN-based and Transformer-based neural TPPs with semantic embeddings from LLaMA-3.1-8B, LLaMA-3.2-1B, and Qwen-3-0.6B.
Figure 6: Estimated conditional intensity functions across different linguistic event types. All subplots utilize RNN-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via LLaMA-3.2-1B . Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 7: Estimated conditional intensity functions across different linguistic event types. All subplots utilize RNN-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via Qwen-3-0.6B . Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 8: Estimated conditional intensity functions across different linguistic event types. All subplots utilize Transformer-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via LLaMA-3.1-8B. Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 9: Estimated conditional intensity functions across different linguistic event types. All subplots utilize Transformer-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via LLaMA-3.2-1B. Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 10: Estimated conditional intensity functions across different linguistic event types. All subplots utilize Transformer-based neural TPP incorporating semantic embeddings extracted via Qwen-3-0.6B. Shadow areas are 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 11: Mean values and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals of the five parameters ( λ1 to λ5 ) estimated by the Conventional TPP model across different text sources on the Speech and Writing Prompt datasets.
Model
Accuracy
Macro F1
Machine (Generated)
Human
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
Speech Dataset
Claude-sonnet-4.5
0.763
0.760
0.700
0.800
0.750
0.820
0.730
0.780
GPT-4.1
0.725
0.720
0.570
0.820
0.680
0.880
0.670
0.760
Qwen-plus
0.725
0.720
0.620
0.780
0.690
0.820
0.690
0.750
Writing Prompt Dataset
Appendix
Table 5: Human vs. LLM classification results based on features extracted from the intensity functions estimated by the Conventional TPP model. We run separate binary classifications for each LLM (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4.1, Qwen-Plus) against human texts.
Model
w/o LLM
LLaMA-3.1-8B
LLaMA-3.2-1B
Qwen-3-0.6B
Acc
AUROC
Acc
AUROC
Acc
AUROC
Acc
AUROC
Speech Dataset
Claude-sonnet-4.5
0.9750
0.9964
0.9450
0.9913
0.9500
0.9896
0.9600
0.9914
GPT-4.1
0.9800
0.9994
0.9650
0.9932
0.9600
0.9939
0.9750
0.9967
Qwen-plus
0.9950
0.9999
0.9800
0.9988
0.9800
0.9978
0.9800
0.9990
Writing Prompt Dataset
Appendix
Table 6: Classification performance (Accuracy and AUROC) of the RNN-based neural TPP model across four embedding configurations (without-LLM, LLaMA-3.1-8B, LLaMA-3.2-1B, Qwen-3-0.6B) for each LLM vs. Human binary classification.
Figure 12: Feature importance heatmap for the Logistic Regression classifiers applied to the RNN-based neural TPP across all combinations of embedding types (without-LLM and LLaMA-3.1-8B, LLaMA-3.2-1B, Qwen-3-0.6B) and generation models (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4.1, Qwen-Plus) on both datasets. The importance scores are estimated using the permutation importance method. The color intensity represents the importance of each feature in distinguishing human from LLM-generated texts.
Figure 13: Heatmap of new-word occurrences in a Writing-Prompts sample (Example 1). Darker orange gradients indicate higher intensity of each word estimated by the RNN-based neural TPP model, whereas new words (appearing for the first time in the context) are denoted by blue bounding boxes. The visualizations demonstrate the bursty, non-uniform distribution of new-word events across the generation sequence.
Figure 14: Heatmap visualizations of new-word occurrence patterns in a second human-written Writing-Prompts sample (Example 2), with intensity levels estimated by the RNN-based neural TPP model.
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.
The generative nature of Large Language Models (LLMs) is reflected in the conditional probabilities they compute to sample each response token given the previous tokens. These probabilities encode the distributional structure that the model learns in training and exploits in inference. In this work, we use these probabilities to situate LLMs within the mathematical theory of stochastic processes. We use this framework to design a model-agnostic probabilistic token attribution measure, using Bayes rule to invert the next-token log-probabilities so as to capture the models internal representation of the distribution over token sequences. The representation is independent of the models computational structure. This representation yields the conditional probability of the response given the prompt, and of the response given the prompt with a token marginalized away. Our attribution score is the log of the ratio of these probabilities. We further compute the entropies of a single prompts token distributions, conditioned on the remaining context. The interplay between entropy and attribution score sheds light on LLM behavior. We evaluate 8 models across 7 prompts and investigate anomalies, token sensitivity, response stability, model stability, and training convergence, thereby improving interpretability and guiding users to focus on uncertain or unstable parts of the generation.
Shilpika Shilpika, Carlo Graziani, Bethany Lusch +2
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory Lemont, IL, USA · Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory Lemont, IL, USA · Department of Computer Science University of Illinois Chicago Chicago, IL, USA
Diffusion language models expose an explicit denoising trajectory, making it possible to ask when different kinds of information become measurable during generation. We study three independent 32-step runs of LLaDA-8B-Base on masked WikiText-103 text, each with 1{,}000 probe-training sequences and 200 held-out evaluation sequences. From saved trajectories, we derive four temporal measurements: token commitment; linear recoverability of part-of-speech (POS), coarse semantic category, and token identity; confidence and entropy dynamics; and sensitivity under mid-trajectory re-masking. Across seeds, the same ordering recurs: content categories stabilize earlier than function-heavy categories, POS and coarse semantic labels remain substantially more linearly recoverable than exact lexical identity under our probe setup, uncertainty remains higher for tokens that ultimately resolve incorrectly even though late confidence becomes less calibrated, and perturbation sensitivity peaks in the middle of the trajectory. A direct/collateral decomposition shows that this peak is overwhelmingly local to the perturbed positions themselves. In this LLaDA+WikiText setting, denoising time is therefore a useful analysis axis: under our measurements, coarse labels are recovered earlier and more robustly than lexical identity, trajectory-level uncertainty tracks eventual correctness, and mid-trajectory states are the most intervention-sensitive.
Harry Lu
School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, United States.