Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts generated by Humans and Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to generate natural language, making texts generated by LLMs increasingly indistinguishable from human-written texts. While recent research has primarily focused on using LLMs to classify text as either human-written or machine-generated texts, our study focuses on characterizing these texts using a set of linguistic features across different linguistic levels such as morphology, syntax, and semantics. We select a dataset of human-written and machine-generated texts spanning 8 domains and produced by 11 different LLMs. We calculate different linguistic features such as dependency length and emotionality, and we use them for characterizing human-written and machine-generated texts along with different sampling strategies, repetition controls, and model release dates. Our statistical analysis reveals that human-written texts tend to exhibit simpler syntactic structures and more diverse semantic content. Furthermore, we calculate the variability of our set of features across models and domains. Both human- and machine-generated texts show stylistic diversity across domains, with human-written texts displaying greater variation in our features. Finally, we apply style embeddings to further test variability among human-written and machine-generated texts. Notably, newer models output text that is similarly variable, pointing to a homogenization of machine-generated texts.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2025.
Builds on
25 of 45 references.
References · 25
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 343
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
- 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 193
- 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 190
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
- 2022Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawedcited by 104
13 more
- 2023AI model GPT-3 (dis)informs us better than humanscited by 75
- 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
- 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 57
- 2024StyleDistance: Stronger Content-Independent Style Embeddings with Synthetic Parallel Examplescited by 32
- 2023Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domainscited by 31
- 2025The Shrinking Landscape of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Text: Factors Influencing Detectability with Current Methodscited by 23
- 2023AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content Generationcited by 21
- 2024Threads of Subtlety: Detecting Machine-Generated Texts Through Discourse Motifscited by 18
- 2024Exploring the Limitations of Detecting Machine-Generated Textcited by 15
- 2017Leveraging Discourse Information Effectively for Authorship Attributioncited by 3
- 2023LEIA: Linguistic Embeddings for the Identification of Affectcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025Understanding and Mitigating Political Stance Cross-topic Generalization in Large Language Modelscited by 6
- 2025Recognising, Anticipating, and Mitigating LLM Pollution of Online Behavioural Researchcited by 3
- 2026Interpretable Stylistic Variation in Human and LLM Writing Across Genres, Models, and Decoding Strategiescited by 1
- 2025Large Language Models Approach Expert Pedagogical Quality in Math Tutoring but Differ in Instructional and Linguistic Profilescited by 0
- 2026When LLM Essays Outscore Student Essays: What a Korean Writing Rubric Rewards and Where Readers Disagreecited by 0
- 2026Cheap, open agents make LLM pollution harder to mitigatecited by 0
- 2026Cheap, open agents make LLM pollution harder to mitigate25 Sep 2026
- 2026Interpretable Stylistic Variation in Human and LLM Writing Across Genres, Models, and Decoding Strategies15 Apr 2026
- 2026When LLM Essays Outscore Student Essays: What a Korean Writing Rubric Rewards and Where Readers Disagree6 Jan 2026
- 2025Large Language Models Approach Expert Pedagogical Quality in Math Tutoring but Differ in Instructional and Linguistic Profiles23 Dec 2025
- 2025Understanding and Mitigating Political Stance Cross-topic Generalization in Large Language Models4 Aug 2025
- 2025Recognising, Anticipating, and Mitigating LLM Pollution of Online Behavioural Research2 Aug 2025