Beware of Words: Evaluating the Lexical Diversity of Conversational LLMs using ChatGPT as Case Study
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
The performance of conversational Large Language Models (LLMs) in general, and of ChatGPT in particular, is currently being evaluated on many different tasks, from logical reasoning or maths to answering questions on a myriad of topics. Instead, much less attention is being devoted to the study of the linguistic features of the texts generated by these LLMs. This is surprising since LLMs are models for language, and understanding how they use the language is important. Indeed, conversational LLMs are poised to have a significant impact on the evolution of languages as they may eventually dominate the creation of new text. This means that for example, if conversational LLMs do not use a word it may become less and less frequent and eventually stop being used altogether. Therefore, evaluating the linguistic features of the text they produce and how those depend on the model parameters is the first step toward understanding the potential impact of conversational LLMs on the evolution of languages. In this paper, we consider the evaluation of the lexical richness of the text generated by LLMs and how it depends on the model parameters. A methodology is presented and used to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of lexical richness using ChatGPT as a case study. The results show how lexical richness depends on the version of ChatGPT and some of its parameters, such as the presence penalty, or on the role assigned to the model. The dataset and tools used in our analysis are released under open licenses with the goal of drawing the much-needed attention to the evaluation of the linguistic features of LLM-generated text.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2024.
Builds on
12 of 47 references.
References · 12
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 567
- 2023On the Stability of Iterative Retraining of Generative Models on their own Datacited by 98
- 2023Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loopcited by 75
- 2023Towards Understanding the Interplay of Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Internetcited by 54
- 2023Emergence of a phonological bias in ChatGPTcited by 8
- 2023Public Perceptions of Gender Bias in Large Language Models: Cases of ChatGPT and Erniecited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 6; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2025The Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Models on Human Expression and Thoughtcited by 35
- 2024DoPAMine: Domain-specific Pre-training Adaptation from seed-guided data Miningcited by 3
- 2026What if AI systems weren't chatbots?cited by 2
- 2025Does a Large Language Model Really Speak in Human-Like Language?cited by 1
- 2025Do LLMs produce texts with "human-like" lexical diversity?cited by 1
- 2025AI Brown and AI Koditex: LLM-Generated Corpora Comparable to Traditional Corpora of English and Czech Textscited by 1
- 2026Lost in Sampling: Assessing Lexical Reachability in LLMs via the Word Coverage Score (WCS)cited by 1
- 2024Quantifying the Risks of Tool-assisted Rephrasing to Linguistic Diversitycited by 0
- 2025A Deep User Interface for Exploring LLaMacited by 0
- 2025IDEAlign: Comparing Ideas of Large Language Models to Domain Expertcited by 0
- 2026Lost in Sampling: Assessing Lexical Reachability in LLMs via the Word Coverage Score (WCS)26 May 2026
- 2026What if AI systems weren't chatbots?8 May 2026
- 2025AI Brown and AI Koditex: LLM-Generated Corpora Comparable to Traditional Corpora of English and Czech Texts26 Sep 2025
- 2025IDEAlign: Comparing Ideas of Large Language Models to Domain Expert2 Sep 2025
- 2025The Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Models on Human Expression and Thought2 Aug 2025
- 2025Do LLMs produce texts with "human-like" lexical diversity?31 Jul 2025
- 2025A Deep User Interface for Exploring LLaMa28 Feb 2025
- 2025Does a Large Language Model Really Speak in Human-Like Language?2 Jan 2025
- 2024Quantifying the Risks of Tool-assisted Rephrasing to Linguistic Diversity23 Oct 2024
- 2024DoPAMine: Domain-specific Pre-training Adaptation from seed-guided data Mining30 Sep 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness
- 2023Summary of ChatGPT-Related Research and Perspective Towards the Future of Large Language Models
- 2023A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
- 2024ChatGPT Alternative Solutions: Large Language Models Survey
- 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey
- 2024A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Natural Language Generation Tasks
- 2024Can large language models understand uncommon meanings of common words?
- 2026Experimental evidence of progressive ChatGPT models self-convergence