AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text (Andre et al., 2023; Shah et al., 2023; Opara, 2024; Soto et al., 2024; Li and Zhang, 2025; Selvioglu et al., 2025). But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent "stylometric footprint": a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human- written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that "AI text" is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 33 references.
References · 16
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 263
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 59
- 2024Few-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text using Style Representationscited by 40
- 2024Beemo: Benchmark of Expert-edited Machine-generated Outputscited by 27
- 2025EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Textcited by 26
- 2024StyloAI: Distinguishing AI-Generated Content with Stylometric Analysiscited by 17
- 2023Implementing BERT and fine-tuned RobertA to detect AI generated news by ChatGPTcited by 13
4 more
- 2025Catch Me If You Can? Not Yet: LLMs Still Struggle to Imitate the Implicit Writing Styles of Everyday Authorscited by 10
- 2025Improve LLM-based Automatic Essay Scoring with Linguistic Featurescited by 8
- 2025Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentationcited by 3
- 2025Feature Extraction and Analysis for GPT-Generated Textcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.