Language Models are Lazy Poets: Creative Mode Collapse at Scale

Large Language Models (LLMs) can compose poetry, but how far are they from human poets? In this paper, we introduce POEMetric, the first comprehensive framework for poetry evaluation, examining 1) basic instruction-following abilities in generating poems according to a certain form and theme, 2) advanced abilities of showing creativity, lexical diversity, and idiosyncrasy, evoking emotional resonance, and using imagery and literary devices, and 3) general appraisal of the overall poem quality and estimation of authorship. We curated a human poem dataset - 203 English poems of 7 fixed forms annotated with meter, rhyme patterns and themes - and experimented with 30 LLMs for poetry generation based on the same forms and themes of the human data, totaling 6,090 LLM poems. Based on POEMetric, we assessed the performance of both human poets and LLMs through rule-based evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge, whose results were validated by human experts. Results show that, though the top model achieved high form accuracy (4.26 out of 5.00, with Gemini-2.5-Pro as a judge; same below) and theme alignment (4.99), all models failed to reach the same level of advanced abilities as human poets, who achieved unparalleled creativity (4.02), idiosyncrasy (3.95), emotional resonance (4.06), and skillful use of imagery (4.49) and literary devices (4.67). Humans also defeated the best-performing LLM in overall poem quality (4.22 vs. 3.20). As such, poetry generation remains a formidable challenge for LLMs. Data and codes are released at https://github.com/Bingru-Li/POEMetric.

LLMs often struggle with modern Korean poetry, producing outputs that resemble "line-broken prose." We address two coupled tasks: detecting whether a Korean poem is human- or LLM-authored, and guiding LLMs to generate poetry closer in form to human writing. We quantify the human-LLM gap along four form-level linguistic dimensions: output length (Volume), the diversity and connective use of line-final forms (Structure Variation), the irregularity of line lengths (Rhythmic Irregularity), and adherence to standard orthography (Normative Adherence). We operationalize these dimensions as five interpretable features. For detection, a logistic regression classifier over these five features attains an average AUC-ROC of 83.60 in zero-shot out-of-distribution detection across seven unseen LLMs, versus 75.84 for the strongest baseline in our comparison, KatFishNet, an absolute gain of 7.76 AUC points and a 10.23% relative improvement; one generator-specific punctuation pattern outside our taxonomy remains a boundary case. For generation, expert evaluation on GPT-5.2 prefers feature-guided poems over the unconstrained baseline, and analyses across GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 show that targeted length, rhythm, and ending statistics move toward the human distribution. These results suggest that interpretable, language-specific features can bridge the diagnosis and guidance of LLM-generated poetry.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now capable of generating highly fluent, human-like text. They enable many applications, but also raise concerns such as large scale spam, phishing, or academic misuse. While much work has focused on detecting LLM-generated text, only limited work has gone into understanding the stylistic differences between human-written and machine-generated text. In this work, we perform a large scale analysis of stylistic variation across human-written text and outputs from 11 LLMs spanning 8 different genres and 4 decoding strategies using Douglas Biber's set of lexicogrammatical and functional features. Our findings reveal insights that can guide intentional LLM usage. First, key linguistic differentiators of LLM-generated text seem robust to generation conditions (e.g., prompt settings to nudge them to generate human-like text, or availability of human-written text to continue the style); second, genre exerts a stronger influence on stylistic features than the source itself; third, chat variants of the models generally appear to be clustered together in stylistic space, and finally, model has a larger effect on the style than decoding strategy, with some exceptions. These results highlight the relative importance of model and genre over prompting and decoding strategies in shaping the stylistic behavior of machine-generated text.