mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Linguistic Characteristics of AI-Generated Text: A Survey

arXiv 2510.05136 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are solidifying their position in the modern world as effective tools for the automatic generation of text. Their use is quickly becoming commonplace in fields such as education, healthcare, and scientific research. There is a growing need to study the linguistic features present in AI-generated text, as the increasing presence of such texts has profound implications in various disciplines such as corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, and natural language processing. Many observations have already been made, however a broader synthesis of the findings made so far is required to provide a better understanding of the topic. The present survey paper aims to provide such a synthesis of extant research. We categorize the existing works along several dimensions, including the levels of linguistic description, the models included, the genres analyzed, the languages analyzed, and the approach to prompting. Additionally, the same scheme is used to present the findings made so far and expose the current trends followed by researchers. Among the most-often reported findings is the observation that AI-generated text is more likely to contain a more formal and impersonal style, signaled by the increased presence of nouns, determiners, and adpositions and the lower reliance on adjectives and adverbs. AI-generated text is also more likely to feature a lower lexical diversity, a smaller vocabulary size, and repetitive text. Current research, however, remains heavily concentrated on English data and mostly on text generated by the GPT model family, highlighting the need for broader cross-linguistic and cross-model investigation. In most cases authors also fail to address the issue of prompt sensitivity, leaving much room for future studies that employ multiple prompt wordings in the text generation phase.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2025.

Builds on

23 of 59 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  3. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
  4. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
  5. 2021How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVENcited by 124
  6. 2023Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 92
  7. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
  8. 2024Mind Your Format: Towards Consistent Evaluation of In-Context Learning Improvementscited by 82
  9. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
  10. 2024Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical stylescited by 62
  11. 2024Detection and Measurement of Syntactic Templates in Generated Textcited by 44
  12. 2023Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questionscited by 42
11 more
  1. 2023ArguGPT: evaluating, understanding and identifying argumentative essays generated by GPT modelscited by 41
  2. 2024A Shocking Amount of the Web is Machine Translated: Insights from Multi-Way Parallelismcited by 33
  3. 2023Differentiate ChatGPT-generated and Human-written Medical Textscited by 26
  4. 2024Evaluating n-Gram Novelty of Language Models Using Rusty-DAWGcited by 24
  5. 2023Classification of Human- and AI-Generated Texts: Investigating Features for ChatGPTcited by 18
  6. 2023Distinguishing ChatGPT(-3.5, -4)-generated and human-written papers through Japanese stylometric analysiscited by 16
  7. 2023Detecting ChatGPT: A Survey of the State of Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Textcited by 10
  8. 2024Whose LLM is it Anyway? Linguistic Comparison and LLM Attribution for GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and Bardcited by 10
  9. 2023Long-form analogies generated by chatGPT lack human-like psycholinguistic propertiescited by 8
  10. 2024PetKaz at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Can Linguistics Capture the Specifics of LLM-generated Text?cited by 4
  11. 2024RFBES at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Investigating Syntactic and Semantic Features for Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Textscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 6.

7 papers.