mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models?

arXiv 2508.17715 ↗First posted 25 Aug 2025cs.IR cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As more content generated by large language models (LLMs) floods into the Internet, information retrieval (IR) systems now face the challenge of distinguishing and handling a blend of human-authored and machine-generated texts. Recent studies suggest that neural retrievers may exhibit a preferential inclination toward LLM-generated content, while classic term-based retrievers like BM25 tend to favor human-written documents. This paper investigates the influence of LLM-generated content on term-based retrieval models, which are valued for their efficiency and robust generalization across domains. Our linguistic analysis reveals that LLM-generated texts exhibit smoother high-frequency and steeper low-frequency Zipf slopes, higher term specificity, and greater document-level diversity. These traits are aligned with LLMs being trained to optimize reader experience through diverse and precise expressions. Our study further explores whether term-based retrieval models demonstrate source bias, concluding that these models prioritize documents whose term distributions closely correspond to those of the queries, rather than displaying an inherent source bias. This work provides a foundation for understanding and addressing potential biases in term-based IR systems managing mixed-source content.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2025.

Builds on

21 of 57 references.

References · 21

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  3. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  4. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
  5. 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
  6. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,605
  7. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  8. 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
  9. 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 575
  10. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
  11. 2020SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformerscited by 430
  12. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
9 more
  1. 2023Neural Retrievers are Biased Towards LLM-Generated Contentcited by 38
  2. 2023Differentiate ChatGPT-generated and Human-written Medical Textscited by 26
  3. 2019ANTIQUE: A Non-Factoid Question Answering Benchmarkcited by 24
  4. 2024Cocktail: A Comprehensive Information Retrieval Benchmark with LLM-Generated Documents Integrationcited by 17
  5. 2023Invisible Relevance Bias: Text-Image Retrieval Models Prefer AI-Generated Imagescited by 13
  6. 2023Long-form analogies generated by chatGPT lack human-like psycholinguistic propertiescited by 8
  7. 2024LLM-Generated Natural Language Meets Scaling Laws: New Explorations and Data Augmentation Methodscited by 8
  8. 2024Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspectivecited by 6
  9. 2025Perplexity Trap: PLM-Based Retrievers Overrate Low Perplexity Documentscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.