mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Interpretable Stylistic Variation in Human and LLM Writing Across Genres, Models, and Decoding Strategies

arXiv 2604.14111 ↗First posted 15 Apr 2026cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now capable of generating highly fluent, human-like text. They enable many applications, but also raise concerns such as large scale spam, phishing, or academic misuse. While much work has focused on detecting LLM-generated text, only limited work has gone into understanding the stylistic differences between human-written and machine-generated text. In this work, we perform a large scale analysis of stylistic variation across human-written text and outputs from 11 LLMs spanning 8 different genres and 4 decoding strategies using Douglas Biber's set of lexicogrammatical and functional features. Our findings reveal insights that can guide intentional LLM usage. First, key linguistic differentiators of LLM-generated text seem robust to generation conditions (e.g., prompt settings to nudge them to generate human-like text, or availability of human-written text to continue the style); second, genre exerts a stronger influence on stylistic features than the source itself; third, chat variants of the models generally appear to be clustered together in stylistic space, and finally, model has a larger effect on the style than decoding strategy, with some exceptions. These results highlight the relative importance of model and genre over prompting and decoding strategies in shaping the stylistic behavior of machine-generated text.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.

Builds on

12 of 29 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  3. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  4. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  5. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
  6. 2023AI model GPT-3 (dis)informs us better than humanscited by 78
  7. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
  8. 2024Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical stylescited by 62
  9. 2024StyleDistance: Stronger Content-Independent Style Embeddings with Synthetic Parallel Examplescited by 35
  10. 2024A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversationscited by 9
  11. 2025Linguistic Characteristics of AI-Generated Text: A Surveycited by 7
  12. 2025Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts generated by Humans and Large Language Modelscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.