mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Temporal Flattening in LLM-Generated Text: Comparing Human and LLM Writing Trajectories

arXiv 2604.12097 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in daily applications, from content generation to code writing, where each interaction treats the model as stateless, generating responses independently without memory. Yet human writing is inherently longitudinal: authors' styles and cognitive states evolve across months and years. This raises a central question: can LLMs reproduce such temporal structure across extended time periods? We construct and publicly release a longitudinal dataset of 412 human authors and 6,086 documents spanning 2012--2024 across three domains (academic abstracts, blogs, news) and compare them to trajectories generated by three representative LLMs under standard and history-conditioned generation settings. Using drift and variance-based metrics over semantic, lexical, and cognitive-emotional representations, we find temporal flattening in LLM-generated text. LLMs produce greater lexical diversity but exhibit substantially reduced semantic and cognitive-emotional drift relative to humans. These differences are highly predictive: temporal variability patterns alone achieve 94% accuracy and 98% ROC-AUC in distinguishing human from LLM trajectories. Our results demonstrate that temporal flattening persists regardless of whether LLMs generate independently or with access to incremental history, revealing a fundamental property of current deployment paradigms. This gap has direct implications for applications requiring authentic temporal structure, such as synthetic training data and longitudinal text modeling.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

Builds on

15 of 36 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  5. 2024On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Surveycited by 244
  6. 2016Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Changecited by 221
  7. 2024Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Paperscited by 118
  8. 2024A Note on Shumailov et al. (2024): `AI Models Collapse When Trained on Recursively Generated Data'cited by 115
  9. 2024DataDreamer: A Tool for Synthetic Data Generation and Reproducible LLM Workflowscited by 43
  10. 2024Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship?cited by 41
  11. 2024Is Your LLM Outdated? A Deep Look at Temporal Generalizationcited by 26
  12. 2025Demystifying Synthetic Data in LLM Pre-training: A Systematic Study of Scaling Laws, Benefits, and Pitfallscited by 26
3 more
  1. 2022Identifying Moments of Change from Longitudinal User Textcited by 17
  2. 2025Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writingcited by 15
  3. 2025Byte-token Enhanced Language Models for Temporal Point Processes Analysiscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.