Human-Written Text

This paper investigates the generation and human evaluation of Japanese haiku by contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on authorship perception and aesthetic judgment within a constrained poetic form. Using a few-shot prompting strategy, Japanese haiku were generated across a heterogeneous set of large language models, including open- and closed-source systems, medium-scale and large-scale architectures, models with native or adapted Japanese support, and multilingual proprietary models. These AI-generated haiku were combined with human-written ones and presented in a questionnaire distributed to students at Japanese universities in Tokyo. The survey assessed whether respondents could distinguish between AI-generated and human-written haiku and which cues informed their judgments. Recognition accuracy varied across models. GPT-5, Gemini 2.5, and StableLM-7B performed at approximately chance level (approx 0.50), whereas LLM-JP, Gemma-2B, and LLaMA-2 showed moderate detectability (approx 0.59-0.67). However, recognition was strongly item-dependent. Ratings of fluency, coherence, poeticness, and related aesthetic dimensions predicted perceived humanness but not correct classification, indicating an attribution bias linked to aesthetic evaluation and revealing a dissociation between aesthetic evaluation and true authorship detection. The extended analysis additionally examines generation-constraint adherence, participant-level characteristics, and exploratory LLM-based evaluations of haiku authorship. Overall, the findings suggest that as LLMs improve, surface-level creative plausibility may reduce reliable human discrimination within constrained poetic settings.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

LLMs have been rapidly adopted across writing tasks, prompting the development of tools for detecting LLM-generated text. Yet, these tools largely measure how much of a document's surface text was written by an LLM and aren't fundamentally designed to measure how much of the information content or ideas originated from the LLM itself rather than being supplied by the user in the prompt. In this work, we design a framework that measures how much value a person adds on top of what a language model could have easily produced by itself. The method requires no training or labeled data and never scores the document's surface text, insulating it from stylistic confounders. Instead, it extracts the document's content at increasing levels of granularity, uses an LLM to reconstruct the document from each partial representation, and compares these reconstructions with those produced from the task description alone. We call this framework Value Over Language Model (VOLM), which measures a document's contribution relative to a replacement-level document that an LLM could produce from the task description alone. We evaluate VOLM with a specific instantiation of this framework across three domains: news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays. VOLM separates human-authored documents from matched LLM-generated documents produced from generic task descriptions, while remaining substantially invariant to content-preserving transformations, including LLM-based reconstruction and round-trip translation. We further find that increasingly constrained content extractors reduce residual differences between LLM-generated and humanized text, demonstrating the importance of disentangling informational content from stylistic variation. We hope these results encourage further work on specialized instantiations of the framework and on assessing human contributions in LLM-assisted writing more generally.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve complex problems, but their misuse in high-risk domains can lead to severe consequences. Model providers therefore restrict assistance for potentially harmful requests. Refusing all cybersecurity requests would therefore harm legitimate users. Providers need a mechanism to block malicious use without denying legitimate assistance to defenders. Existing cybersecurity-specific datasets evaluate this mechanism, but none considers the conversational context of a request. We introduce 3R-Bench (Refusal, Repetition, and Revision), a benchmark of 150 real-world cybersecurity requests augmented with two adversarial conversational settings, and evaluate eight LLMs on it. Prior assistant behavior strongly changes responses to an unchanged request: among 376 available pairs from a 400-pair panel, compliance rises from 62.0% after refused history to 85.1% after accepted history. The opposite pattern appears under dialogue decomposition. In comparison, compliance falls from 501/800 direct responses to 172/800 after dialogue; among 738 pairs returning model-authored text in both conditions, the decrease is 45.1 points. Failure feedback recovers only a small fraction of this loss.

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text (Andre et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2023; Opara, 2024; Soto et al., 2024; Li and Zhang, 2025; Selvioglu et al., 2025). But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent "stylometric footprint": a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human- written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that "AI text" is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

Financial text is produced and interpreted within a market environment, yet financial text classifiers almost always receive text alone. We study whether financial time series are useful as an additional input on the task of classifying sentences from Federal Reserve communication as hawkish, dovish, or neutral. Our system, \lfts{}, extends the \lf{} architecture with this modality: a small voting network combines three independently trained components, a fine-tuned RoBERTa encoder, a prompted large language model (LLM), and a fused ensemble of time-series transformers over the market series of the months preceding publication. Because only about a thousand annotated sentences are available for training, the RoBERTa encoder is first pre-trained on sentences annotated automatically by the LLM and only then fine-tuned on the human labels. Trained on Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) communication up to 2015 and evaluated on 2015--2022, the fused system achieves 70.2% weighted F1 -- against 64.1% for the zero-shot LLM -- and overtakes it with as few as 240 human-labelled sentences. We take this as initial evidence for market time series as an input modality in financial text classification.

In an age of rapid model turnover, how do we make hallucination evaluation more perennial? We explore whether human-written hallucination samples could take the place of model-generated hallucinations, in order to make benchmarking detection independent of particular models. To this end, we construct a dataset of 1,600 human-written samples, spanning four languages (Chinese, English, French, Italian), and 18,400 samples from five vision-and-language models, all annotated for hallucinations using a fine-grained span-level labeling scheme. We find that human-written samples result in higher agreement and allow greater control of dataset contents, while remaining distributionally similar to samples derived from vision-and-language samples and providing a reasonable portrayal of detection capabilities - suggesting that human data is a viable substitute for model-based hallucination benchmarks.

Prior work on LLM-generated text has demonstrated quantitative and qualitative departures from text produced by humans. LLM-generated texts differ from human writing in style, resulting in a characteristic textual "feel," while the semantic range of LLMs is much restricted compared to that of humans. In this contribution, I note simple but consistent patterns in the statistical distribution of n-grams within LLM-generated text. Via qualitative analysis of these n-grams, I reveal deficiencies in LLM style. Because higher-order n-grams correlate to semantic content, I conclude that questions of style and semantics are not cleanly separable.

Rhetorical strategies and their influence on audiences are often studied through social media posts and comments. However, this focus overlooks the universal audience, which is the majority of readers who remain silent and do not explicitly express how a message affects them. This study investigates how two classical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos, resonate in the silent audience's interpretations of meaning. Using a dataset of social media sentences paired with human-written interpretations, we label both sources for ethos and pathos and assess whether these rhetorical appeals are preserved. Our analyses show that interpretations diverge from the original sentences in 30% of cases, with rhetorically charged content eliciting greater variability than neutral content. We further find that ethos and pathos in original sentences can predict audience attitudes toward the author, underscoring the subtle ways rhetoric shapes perception beyond visible engagement.

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.

Factual Error Detection (FED), which is the task of identifying factually incorrect spans in a given text, has long been recognized as an important research problem. However, with the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs), research attention has shifted toward factual errors specific to LLM-generated text (hallucinations) and their detection. As a result, the detection of factual errors in human-written text has been relatively neglected. To address this gap, we first distill a taxonomy of human-induced factual errors by analyzing corrections of newspaper articles, a representative source of text that is guaranteed to be human-written and contains few grammatical errors. Our analysis revealed that there are characteristic categories such as kanji misconversions and unit errors, which are not focused in existing hallucination benchmarks. Based on the taxonomy, we then evaluate the FED capability of vanilla LLMs on synthesized realistic test cases and real corrections. Experimental results demonstrated that even high-performance LLMs such as GPT-5.4 achieved only word-level F1 score of 52% on the synthetic evaluation data, highlighting the task difficulty. Furthermore, a detailed analysis by detection difficulty revealed the current state of FED.

AI translation of literary works is increasingly common. While the content may be rendered adequately, we do not know enough about how readers experience it in terms of immersiveness and literary effect-aspects poorly captured by automatic metrics or human evaluation targeting fluency and adequacy. We ask 15 avid readers to compare recently published human translations (HT) to machine translations (MT) generated with an agentic language model-based pipeline, for 15 recent novels in French, Polish, and Japanese translated into English. Readers evaluated approximately 8K-word excerpts in two conditions: immersive reading of the whole excerpt (30 comparisons) and close reading of 386 aligned HT-MT chunk pairs (772 comparisons), with two readers per book. Overall, readers find MT "fine", but prefer HT (descriptively at the excerpt level, 19/30, and significantly at the chunk level, 522/772) for its ease, clarity, and immersive nature. Readers' highlights show that MT's quality varies more within one book than HT's does. Crucially, readers cannot reliably tell the two apart (17/30 guess correctly) and tend to prefer the version they believe to be human. Automatic metrics, including LLM-as-a-judge approaches, fail to recover reader preferences and favor MT. We release LAIT (Literary AI Translation), a reader-centered evaluation dataset with 1K reader comments, 2K judgments and preference ratings, and 7.2K span-level annotations, along with our evaluation protocol and supporting interface.

Large language models are making research production scalable, shifting the bottleneck from producing artifacts to judging claims. We present \textsc{Agon}, a research orchestrator that validates what can be checked inside the workflow and leaves the remaining judgments to human scientists. \textsc{Agon} is built on six design principles: Prompt Economy, Future-Facing, Minimal Prompts, OmniDisciplinary, Massive Parallelism, and Zero-Code. We ran \textsc{Agon} across domains for 444 iterations of Prompt Economy loops, using only small starting topics and no human-written experimental code. These deployments demonstrate scalability while exposing new classes of failure. We organize these failures into a taxonomy along severity, fixability, visibility, and capability locus. The taxonomy separates failures the loops can see and fix from those that require human judgment. Together, these results show that \textsc{Agon} is pushing research toward a new paradigm: machine scales, human steers.

As LLM-generated text is increasingly used, especially in fictional domains, we explore how much LLM-generated stories differ from human-written stories. In this work, we focus on characters. We borrow definitions from narratology to analyze eight intricate dimensions of character, such as stylization and wholeness. These dimensions consider more than just basic characteristics. They assess how characters are portrayed within their stories. After automatically inferring categories of characters within both LLM and human-written stories, we compare and contrast these two sets of stories. We consider the following overarching questions: (1) Do LLMs and human-written stories have similar characters? and (2) Do LLMs generate stories with a variety of characters? Our analysis includes research questions that focus on stories generated by popular LLMs and recently published human-written stories. We describe a number of interesting similarities, differences and key takeaways.

How can we design a market of human-generated content for use in training AI models that both enables technological progress and preserves individual incentives for high-quality content creation? Existing approaches take polar positions: a "free-for-all" model based on fair use and a "strong intellectual property rights" model. We show that both fail: Free-for-all does not compensate creators, and -- by modeling as a static Stackelberg game -- strong intellectual property rights also underpower creative incentives. We find this especially true for more innovative creators, a phenomenon we term the "originality penalty." Extending this insight to a dynamic model, we find another market failure undermining AI model performance, even for an initially good model: Such a model induces greater reliance by humans on AI-assisted creation, resulting in homogenized content feeding back into training, which degrades the model performance -- a "curse of precision." We further propose a market design with a data intermediary internalizing cross-creator externalities and subsidizing innovative contributions, thereby restoring efficiency.

Spoken language, whether produced by humans or large language models (LLM), unfolds over time with varying semantic content. However, we still lack simple, interpretable time-series features that capture how generic versus specific content is distributed over time, and that can be used to compare human and AI-generated speech. We introduce a semantic-timescale analysis pipeline that turns word-level transcripts with timestamps into semantic time-series. For each spoken narrative, we compute (i) semantic specificity using WordNet-based word depth and (ii) contextual similarity using SBERT embeddings and quantify their temporal dependence using autocorrelation-window measures (ACW-0 and related metrics). We then compare original speech to multiple shuffled controls that selectively disrupt lexical identity, temporal order, and word duration. Across human-read autobiographical narratives, TTS readings, and LLM-generated texts rendered with TTS, we find that segments with longer ACW-0 in the semantic time-series tend to contain more generic vocabulary, whereas segments with shorter ACW-0 are enriched in more specific words. These associations are strongly attenuated or abolished when word order and timing are randomized, indicating that ACW-based measures capture non-trivial temporal organization of semantic content beyond static lexical distributions. Our results suggest that ACW-based semantic timescales are a useful family of features for analyzing and comparing the temporal structure of human and AI-generated speech.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored. This work explores the persuasive potential of LLMs through the framework of Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. It examines whether LLMs express illocutionary intent (i.e., pragmatic functions of language such as conveying knowledge, building trust, or signaling similarity) in ways that are comparable to human communication. We simulate online discussions between opinion holders and LLMs using conversations from the persuasive subreddit ChangeMyView. We then compare the likelihood of illocutionary intents in human-written and LLM-generated counter-arguments, specifically those that successfully changed the original poster's view. We find that all three LLMs effectively convey illocutionary intent -- often more so than humans -- potentially increasing their anthropomorphism. Further, LLMs craft sycophantic responses that closely align with the opinion holder's intent, a strategy strongly associated with opinion change. Finally, crowd-sourced workers find LLM-generated counter-arguments more agreeable and consistently prefer them over human-written ones. These findings suggest that LLMs' persuasive power extends beyond merely generating high-quality arguments. On the contrary, training LLMs with human preferences effectively tunes them to mirror human communication patterns, particularly nuanced communicative actions, potentially increasing individuals' susceptibility to their influence.

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

Evaluating whether large language models (LLMs) capture the structure of natural language beyond local fluency remains an open challenge. Existing evaluation methods, largely based on task performance or short-context behavior, provide limited insight into the long-range statistical organization of generated text. We propose a complementary evaluation framework based on repeated subsequences. By analyzing their distribution across scales and relating it to higher-order Rényi entropies, we probe how texts reuse previously established structure under finite-length conditions. Experiments on human-written texts and length-matched GPT-generated texts show that, while power-law models can describe restricted ranges of block length, the observed entropy growth is often equally or better characterized by logarithmic--power forms. Across datasets, natural language exhibits stable entropy-growth patterns over accessible ranges, with consistent average behavior despite variability across individual texts. In contrast, GPT-generated texts show systematic and statistically significant shifts in estimated exponents with model size. These results demonstrate that repeated-subsequence entropy provides a quantitative structural diagnostic that reveals systematic differences in long-range organization, distinguishing natural language from state-of-the-art LLM outputs beyond surface-level fluency.

Large language models are optimized for instruction following and agentic tasks remain poorly aligned with the requirements of high-quality creative writing. We show that a purpose-built creative writing model can outperform both GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 on writing quality evaluation. Fiction frequently depends on behaviors that assistant-tuned models are explicitly trained to avoid, particularly deception, moral ambiguity, and unreliable narration. As a result, generated stories often appear structurally correct while remaining stylistically generic, overly explanatory, or weakly grounded in human literary behavior. We present a dataset construction and training framework for book-scale creative writing that reframes supervised fine-tuning as a prompt-to-book generation task grounded in human-authored fiction. Starting from public-domain novels, we derive a multi-resolution Planning Scaffold by summarizing each book at progressively finer levels, from a high-level premise to chapter- and scene-level structure. We then invert this hierarchy during training: the model learns to expand a prompt into increasingly detailed plans and finally into the original human-authored book text. This formulation preserves human prose as the final supervised target while using intermediate summaries to make book-scale generation learnable. We train a long-context language model on these prompt-to-book trajectories and show that this objective shifts generation away from assistant-style prose and toward human literary writing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate plausible but false information across a wide range of contexts, yet the real-world magnitude and consequences of this hallucination problem remain poorly understood. Here we leverage a uniquely verifiable object - scientific citations - to audit 111 million references across 2.5 million papers in arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PubMed Central. We find a sharp rise in non-existent references following widespread LLM adoption, with a conservative estimate of 146,932 hallucinated citations in 2025 alone. These errors are diffusely embedded across many papers but especially pronounced in fields with rapid AI uptake, in manuscripts with linguistic signatures of AI-assisted writing, and among small and early-career author teams. At the same time, hallucinated references disproportionately assign credit to already prominent and male scholars, suggesting that LLM-generated errors may reinforce existing inequities in scientific recognition. Preprint moderation and journal publication processes capture only a fraction of these errors, suggesting that the spread of hallucinated content has outpaced existing safeguards. Together, these findings demonstrate that LLM hallucinations are infiltrating knowledge production at scale, threatening both the reliability and equity of future scientific discovery as human and AI systems draw on the existing literature.

The ability to reliably distinguish human-written text from that generated by large language models is of profound societal importance. The dominant approach to this problem exploits the likelihood hypothesis: that machine-generated text should appear more probable to a detector language model than human-written text. However, we demonstrate that the token-level signal distinguishing human and machine text is non-uniform across the hidden space of the detector model, and naively averaging likelihood-based token scores across regions with fundamentally different statistical structure, as most detectors do, causes a form of Simpson's paradox: a strong local signal is destroyed by inappropriate aggregation. To correct for this, we introduce a learned local calibration step grounded in Bayesian decision theory. Rather than aggregating raw token scores, we first learn lightweight predictors of the score distributions conditioned on position in hidden space, and aggregate calibrated log-likelihood ratios instead. This single intervention dramatically and consistently improves detection performance across all baseline detectors and all datasets we consider. For example, our calibrated variant of Fast-DetectGPT improves AUROC from $0.63$ to $0.85$ on GPT-5.4 text, and a locally-calibrated DMAP detector we introduce achieves state-of-the-art performance across the board. That said, our central contribution is not a new detector, but a precise diagnosis of a significant cause of under-performance of existing detectors and a principled, modular remedy compatible with any token-averaging pipeline. This will serve as a foundation for the community to build upon, with natural avenues including richer distributional models, improved calibration strategies, and principled ensembling with hidden-space geometry signals via the full Bayes-optimal decision rule.

This study contributes to a growing line of research in comparing LLM-generated texts with human-authored text, in this case, English news text. We focus in particular on the evaluation of syntactic properties through formal grammar frameworks. Our analysis compares two generations of LLMs in the context of two human-authored English news datasets from two different years. Employing the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) formalism, we investigate the distributions of syntactic structures and lexical types of AI-generated texts and contrast them with the corresponding distributions in the human-authored New York Times (NYT) articles. We use diversity metrics from ecology and information theory to quantify variation in grammatical constructions and lexical types. We show that English news text has changed little in the given time frame, while newer LLMs display reduced syntactic and, especially, lexical diversity compared to older, non-instruction-tuned models. These findings point to future work in studying effects of instruction tuning, which, while enhancing coherence and adherence to prompts, may narrow the expressive range of model output.

The increasing prevalence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in content creation has made distinguishing human-written textual content from LLM-generated counterparts a critical task for multimedia moderation. Existing detectors often rely on statistical cues or model-specific heuristics, making them vulnerable to paraphrasing and adversarial manipulations, and consequently limiting their robustness and interpretability. In this work, we proposeLiSCP , a novel lightweight stylistic consistency profiling method for robust detection of LLM-generated textual content, focusing on feature stability under adversarial manipulation. Our approach constructs a consistency profile that combines discrete stylistic features with continuous semantic signals, leveraging stylistic stability across multimodal-guided paraphrased text variants. Experiments spanning real-world multimedia news and movie datasets and conventional text domains demonstrate that LiSCP achieves superior performance on in-domain detection and outperforms existing approaches by up to 11.79% in cross-domain settings. Additionally,it demonstrates notable robustness under adversarial scenarios, including adversarial attacks and hybrid human-AI settings.

We introduce Xiaohongshu Social Comparison Reader Elicitation (XHS-SCoRE), a reader-grounded benchmark for detecting whether text-only Xiaohongshu (RedNote) posts elicit Upward, Downward, or Neutral/no clear social comparison from a first-person reader perspective. The task targets a socially meaningful relational, behaviorally real signal not reducible to sentiment. Across prompted LLM classifiers and supervised Chinese encoders, we find a consistent generation--detection mismatch: the signal is textually learnable in-domain, but not robustly accessible to prompt-based classification. Prompted LLM classifiers show stable failures, especially neutralization of comparison-eliciting posts and model-specific directional skew. A controlled pilot shows that LLM-generated Xiaohongshu-style posts can shift perceived standing and comparison-related affect even when prompt-based detection of the same construct remains fragile. XHS-SCoRE contributes a benchmark for reader-grounded comparison detection and a diagnostic framework for studying when socially meaningful relational cues remain only partially visible to prompt-based inference.

The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has rendered the boundary between humanity and computational machinery increasingly ambiguous. In the presence of more interwoven relationships within human-machine symbiosis, the very notion of AI-generated information becomes difficult to define, as such information arises not from either humans or machines in isolation, but from their mutual shaping. Therefore, a more pertinent question lies not merely in whether AI has participated, but in how it has participated. In general, the role assumed by AI is often specified, either implicitly or explicitly, in the input prompt, yet becomes less apparent or altogether unobservable when the generated content alone is available. Once detached from the dialogue context, the functional role may no longer be traceable. This study considers the problem of tracing the functional role played by AI in natural language generation. A methodology is proposed to infer the latent role specified by the prompt, embed this role into the content during the probabilistic generation process and subsequently recover the nature of AI participation from the resulting text. Experimentation is conducted under a representative scenario in which AI acts either as an assistive agent that edits human-written content or as a creative agent that generates new content from a brief concept. The experimental results support the validity of the proposed methodology in terms of discrimination between roles, robustness against perturbations and preservation of linguistic quality. We envision that this study may contribute to future research on the ethics of AI with regard to whether AI has been used fairly, transparently and appropriately.

Many recent news reports have claimed that content generated by large language models (LLMs) is taking over the web. However, these claims are typically not based on a representative sample of the web and the methodology underlying them is often opaque. Moreover, when aiming to minimize the chances of falsely attributing human-authored content to LLMs, we find that detectors of LLM-generated text perform much worse than advertised. Consequently, we lack an understanding of the true prevalence and characteristics of LLM content on the web. We describe DeGenTWeb which systematically identifies LLM-dominant websites: sites whose content has been generated using LLMs with little human input. We show how to adapt detectors of LLM-generated text for use on web pages, and how to aggregate detection results from multiple pages on a site for accurate site-level categorization. Using DeGenTWeb, we find that LLM-dominant sites are highly prevalent both in data from Common Crawl and in Bing's search results, and that this share is growing over time. We also show that continuing to accurately identify such sites appears challenging given the capabilities of the latest LLMs.

Differential Privacy (DP) for text matured from disjointed word-level substitutions to contiguous sentence-level rewriting by leveraging the generative capacity of language models. While this form of text privatization is best suited for balancing formal privacy guarantees with grammatical coherence, its impact on the register identity of text remains largely unexplored. By conducting a multidimensional stylistic profiling of differentially-private rewriting, we demonstrate that the cost of privacy extends far beyond lexical variation. Specifically, we find that rewriting under privacy constraints induces a systematic functional mutation of the text's communicative signature. This shift is characterized by the severe attrition of interactive markers, contextual references, and complex subordination. By comparing autoregressive paraphrasing against bidirectional substitution across a spectrum of privacy budgets, we observe that both architectures force convergence toward a non-involved and non-persuasive register. This register-blind sanitization effectively preserves semantic content but structurally homogenizes the nuanced stylistic markers that define human-authored discourse.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

Evaluating the writing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge due to the multidimensional nature of writing skills and the limitations of existing metrics. LLM's performance in thousand-words level and open-ended writing is inadequately assessed by traditional reference-based metrics or modern LLM-as-a-judge methods. We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW), to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation. ToW incorporates a tree-structured workflow by explicitly modeling the aggregation weights of sub-features. We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories: contextual completion, outline-guided writing, and open-ended generation. ToW successfully mitigates the biases, achieving a 0.93 Pearson correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, we detect that both overlap-based text generation metrics and popular LLM-as-a-judge practices are vulnerable to textual disturbances, while ToW is robust to them. We also uncover a negative correlation between input length and content-related scores in the Guide task, showcasing that it cannot be simply improved by input-side information piling.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to curate and rank human-created content, yet the nature and structure of their biases in these tasks remains poorly understood: which biases are robust across providers and platforms, and which can be mitigated through prompt design. We present a controlled simulation study mapping content selection biases across three major LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) on real social media datasets from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit, using six prompting strategies (\textit{general}, \textit{popular}, \textit{engaging}, \textit{informative}, \textit{controversial}, \textit{neutral}). Through 540,000 simulated top-10 selections from pools of 100 posts across 54 experimental conditions, we find that biases differ substantially in how structural and how prompt-sensitive they are. Polarization is amplified across all configurations, toxicity handling shows a strong inversion between engagement- and information-focused prompts, and sentiment biases are predominantly negative. Provider comparisons reveal distinct trade-offs: GPT-4o Mini shows the most consistent behavior across prompts; Claude and Gemini exhibit high adaptivity in toxicity handling; Gemini shows the strongest negative sentiment preference. On Twitter/X, where author demographics can be inferred from profile bios, political leaning bias is the clearest demographic signal: left-leaning authors are systematically over-represented despite right-leaning authors forming the pool plurality in the dataset, and this pattern largely persists across prompts.

ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this decision was not accompanied by quantitative evidence. In this work, we investigate this claim by measuring the proportion of LLM-generated content in review vs. non-review research papers in recent years. Using two high-quality detection methods, we find a substantial increase in LLM-generated content across both review and non-review papers, with a higher prevalence in review papers. However, when considering the number of LLM-generated papers published in each category, the estimates of non-review LLM-generated papers are almost six times higher. Furthermore, we find that this policy will affect papers in certain domains far more than others, with the CS subdiscipline Computers & Society potentially facing cuts of 50%. Our analysis provides an evidence-based framework for evaluating such policy decisions, and we release our code to facilitate future investigations at: https://github.com/yanaiela/llm-review-arxiv.

As AI-generated content increasingly populates the web, generative AI models are at growing risk of being trained on their own outputs, a process known as AI autophagy. This feedback loop has been shown to induce model collapse, typically characterized by a loss of diversity in generated content. However, existing work offers a limited understanding of this phenomenon and relies on mitigation strategies that assume access to human-authored data. In this paper, we conduct extensive simulations across multiple datasets and LLMs to address key gaps in the study of model collapse. First, we introduce model-intrinsic measures based on next-token probability distributions, showing that model collapse corresponds to an increasing concentration of probability mass on a small set of tokens. Second, we demonstrate that model collapse is also associated with a loss of common sense, as measured by a decline in commonsense inference accuracy. Third, we identify perplexity (a measure of model "surprise") as a key driver of collapse: fine-tuning on the least "surprising" documents leads to more severe degeneration. Building on this insight, we propose a perplexity-based filtering strategy that prioritizes high-surprise documents during fine-tuning. Unlike existing approaches, our method does not require distinguishing between human-authored and AI-generated content. Across datasets and LLM families, this strategy consistently mitigates model collapse, achieving performance comparable to, and in some cases better than, human-data baselines, while substantially reducing the concentration of next-token probabilities. Overall, our results provide a unified, model-centric understanding of model collapse and suggest practical, scalable strategies for training generative AI systems in increasingly synthetic environments.

From the printing press to social media, innovations in communication technology have repeatedly reshaped how ideas spread through human culture. Chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence constitute a new medium, encoding cultural patterns in their neural representations and disseminating them in conversations with hundreds of millions of people. Whether these patterns transmit into human language, and ultimately shape human culture, is a fundamental question. While fully quantifying the causal impact of a chatbot like ChatGPT on human culture is challenging, lexical shifts in human spoken communication may offer an early indicator. Here we show that words preferentially generated by ChatGPT, such as delve, showcase, boast, intricacies and meticulous, increased abruptly in spontaneous human speech. A synthetic-control analysis of 737,083 hours of conversation from 824,634 podcast episodes, screened for unscripted speech, causally links this shift to ChatGPT's release. The measurable influence on spontaneous speech suggests that humans internalize the lexical choices of large language models (LLMs). A preregistered experiment (N = 496) confirms they do, as a brief chatbot interaction led participants to adopt its words as their own, persisting past a distractor task and confirmed in forced lexical choice, indicating entrenchment in the active vocabulary. Together these results show that machines trained on human data now feed their own traits back into human language, integrating LLMs into the ongoing processes of cultural evolution.. This coupling raises concerns about linguistic homogenization and the capacity of a few major AI providers for latent cultural influence at scale.

Students increasingly use the assistance of large language models (LLMs) in their academic writing. While slight assistance (e.g., grammar and style correction, as well as feedback) is permitted under most institutional policies, it is usually forbidden to offload entire writing tasks to LLMs. Unfortunately, current approaches to LLM-generated text detection predominantly assume a binary distinction between human-written and LLM-generated text, ignoring the breadth of realistic human-AI collaboration practices and limiting the validity of detection systems for educational assessment. In this paper, we propose a contribution-aware evaluation framework for LLM-based detection systems in education. We introduce a scale of eight student contribution levels that model realistic writing scenarios ranging from fully human-written texts to LLM-assisted revisions to fully LLM-generated and adversarially humanized texts. Institutional policies regarding LLM use can then be translated to thresholds of acceptable LLM assistance on this scale. We further present Generative Essay Detection in Education (GEDE), a novel benchmark dataset comprising more than 900 human-written and over 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks and all contribution levels. Using this benchmark, we conduct a systematic evaluation of four state-of-the-art zero-shot and supervised detection methods across policy boundaries, contribution levels, generative models, out-of-distribution data, and text length. We show that most detectors struggle to accurately classify texts at intermediate student contribution levels, in particular LLM-assisted revisions of human-written texts. Such errors pose a substantial risk of false accusations, indicating that current text detection systems are (still) unsuitable to reliably support the enforcement of institutional policies regarding LLM assistance in education.