The Statistical Signature of LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models generate text through probabilistic sampling from high-dimensional distributions, yet how this process reshapes the structural statistical organization of language remains incompletely characterized. Here we show that lossless compression provides a simple, model-agnostic measure of statistical regularity that differentiates generative regimes directly from surface text. We analyze compression behavior across three progressively more complex information ecosystems: controlled human-LLM continuations, generative mediation of a knowledge infrastructure (Wikipedia vs. Grokipedia), and fully synthetic social interaction environments (Moltbook vs. Reddit). Across settings, compression reveals a persistent structural signature of probabilistic generation. In controlled and mediated contexts, LLM-produced language exhibits higher structural regularity and compressibility than human-written text, consistent with a concentration of output within highly recurrent statistical patterns. However, this signature shows scale dependence: in fragmented interaction environments the separation attenuates, suggesting a fundamental limit to surface-level distinguishability at small scales. This compressibility-based separation emerges consistently across models, tasks, and domains and can be observed directly from surface text without relying on model internals or semantic evaluation. Overall, our findings introduce a simple and robust framework for quantifying how generative systems reshape textual production, offering a structural perspective on the evolving complexity of communication.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2026.
Builds on
21 of 42 references.
References · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2020The Pushshift Reddit Datasetcited by 289
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 101
- 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 86
- 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 75
9 more
- 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
- 2024Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical stylescited by 62
- 2023HC3 Plus: A Semantic-Invariant Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpuscited by 33
- 2025The simulation of judgment in LLMscited by 22
- 2024GenAI Detection Tools, Adversarial Techniques and Implications for Inclusivity in Higher Educationcited by 13
- 2025Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligencecited by 11
- 2025Generative Exaggeration in LLM Social Agents: Consistency, Bias, and Toxicitycited by 8
- 2025What did Elon change? A comprehensive analysis of Grokipediacited by 4
- 2026Wikipedia and Grokipedia: A Comparison of Human and Generative Encyclopediascited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.