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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14111 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.14111/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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 (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09203/) (2019)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (2019)
- [RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07940/) (2024)
- [AI model GPT-3 (dis)informs us better than humans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11924/) (2023)
- [Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09067/) (2023)
- [Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16107/) (2024)
- [StyleDistance: Stronger Content-Independent Style Embeddings with Synthetic Parallel Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12757/) (2024)
- [A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.16587/) (2024)
- [Linguistic Characteristics of AI-Generated Text: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05136/) (2025)
- [Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts generated by Humans and Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.13614/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Too Good to Be Real? Diagnosing and Reducing the Gap Between AI Preference and Real User Engagement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18282/) (2026)

## 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.