mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Are LLMs Doing to Scientific Communication? Measuring Changes in Writing Practices and Reading Experience

arXiv 2605.19936 ↗First posted 19 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Has the style of scientific communication changed due to the growing use of large language models in the writing process? We address this question in the domain of Natural Language Processing by leveraging two data resources we create: a naturalistic corpus of over 37,000 papers from the ACL Anthology (2020-2024); and a synthetic dataset of 3,000 human-written passages and their LLM-generated improvements. We first implement a series of diachronic lexical analyses, showing that both word frequency and usage contexts have changed significantly over time, indicating semantic specialization in some cases and generalization in others. Broadening our perspective, we then model a range of more complex stylistic features and find that LLM-modified texts more frequently contain certain syntactic constructions, more complex and longer words and a lower lexical diversity. Finally, we connect these changes in writing practices to subjective reading experience through a pilot annotation study with 20 domain experts. They overall rate LLM-improved texts as more understandable and exciting, but also express negative qualitative attitudes towards LLMs, highlighting the strongly subjective effect of AI-assisted writing on reading experience.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

Builds on

18 of 45 references.

References · 18

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  2. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  3. 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 779
  4. 2024Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inferencecited by 527
  5. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  6. 2022CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilitiescited by 245
  7. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
  8. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
  9. 2024Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabularycited by 75
  10. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
  11. 2024Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical stylescited by 62
  12. 2018Survey of Computational Approaches to Lexical Semantic Changecited by 60
6 more
  1. 2025People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated textcited by 39
  2. 2023Token Prediction as Implicit Classification to Identify LLM-Generated Textcited by 26
  3. 2023AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content Generationcited by 21
  4. 2025HACo-Det: A Study Towards Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection under Human-AI Coauthoringcited by 14
  5. 2025Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theorycited by 11
  6. 2025Divergent LLM Adoption and Heterogeneous Convergence Paths in Research Writingcited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.