Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts generated by Humans and Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13614v2
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 07:34:37 GMT
• Title: Linguistic and Embedding-Based Profiling of Texts generated by Humans and Large Language Models
• Authors: Sergio E. Zanotto, Segun Aroyehun,
• Abstract summary: We calculate different linguistic features such as dependency length and emotionality for characterizing human-written and machine-generated texts.<n>Our statistical analysis reveals that human-written texts tend to exhibit simpler syntactic structures and more diverse semantic content.<n>Both human and machine texts show stylistic diversity across domains, with humans displaying greater variation in our features.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to generate natural language, making texts generated by LLMs increasingly indistinguishable from human-written texts. While recent research has primarily focused on using LLMs to classify text as either human-written and machine-generated texts, our study focus on characterizing these texts using a set of linguistic features across different linguistic levels such as morphology, syntax, and semantics. We select a dataset of human-written and machine-generated texts spanning 8 domains and produced by 11 different LLMs. We calculate different linguistic features such as dependency length and emotionality and we use them for characterizing human-written and machine-generated texts along with different sampling strategies, repetition controls and model release date. Our statistical analysis reveals that human-written texts tend to exhibit simpler syntactic structures and more diverse semantic content. Furthermore, we calculate the variability of our set of features across models and domains. Both human and machine texts show stylistic diversity across domains, with humans displaying greater variation in our features. Finally, we apply style embeddings to further test variability among human-written and machine-generated texts. Notably, newer models output text that is similarly variable, pointing to an homogenization of machine-generated texts.

Related papers

• TextInVision: Text and Prompt Complexity Driven Visual Text Generation Benchmark [61.412934963260724]
  Existing diffusion-based text-to-image models often struggle to accurately embed text within images.<n>We introduce TextInVision, a large-scale, text and prompt complexity driven benchmark to evaluate the ability of diffusion models to integrate visual text into images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T21:36:31Z)
• Human Variability vs. Machine Consistency: A Linguistic Analysis of Texts Generated by Humans and Large Language Models [0.0]
  We identify significant differences between human-written texts and those generated by large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings indicate that humans write texts that are less cognitively demanding, with higher semantic content, and richer emotional content compared to texts generated by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T04:38:35Z)
• Detecting Machine-Generated Long-Form Content with Latent-Space Variables [54.07946647012579]
  Existing zero-shot detectors primarily focus on token-level distributions, which are vulnerable to real-world domain shifts. We propose a more robust method that incorporates abstract elements, such as event transitions, as key deciding factors to detect machine versus human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:42:09Z)
• Differentiating between human-written and AI-generated texts using linguistic features automatically extracted from an online computational tool [0.0]
  This study aims to investigate how various linguistic components are represented in both types of texts, assessing the ability of AI to emulate human writing. Despite AI-generated texts appearing to mimic human speech, the results revealed significant differences across multiple linguistic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T05:37:09Z)
• Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Text [61.22649031769564]
  We propose a novel framework, paraphrased text span detection (PTD) PTD aims to identify paraphrased text spans within a text. We construct a dedicated dataset, PASTED, for paraphrased text span detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T11:22:27Z)
• Threads of Subtlety: Detecting Machine-Generated Texts Through Discourse Motifs [19.073560504913356]
  The line between human-crafted and machine-generated texts has become increasingly blurred. This paper delves into the inquiry of identifying discernible and unique linguistic properties in texts that were written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T11:20:30Z)
• The Imitation Game: Detecting Human and AI-Generated Texts in the Era of ChatGPT and BARD [3.2228025627337864]
  We introduce a novel dataset of human-written and AI-generated texts in different genres. We employ several machine learning models to classify the texts. Results demonstrate the efficacy of these models in discerning between human and AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-22T21:00:14Z)
• Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Texts [22.852855047237153]
  We show that the average intrinsic dimensionality of fluent texts in a natural language is hovering around the value $9$ for several alphabet-based languages and around $7$ for Chinese. This property allows us to build a score-based artificial text detector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T18:38:04Z)
• MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild [82.70561073277801]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved human-level text generation, emphasizing the need for effective AI-generated text detection. We build a comprehensive testbed by gathering texts from diverse human writings and texts generated by different LLMs. Despite challenges, the top-performing detector can identify 86.54% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:13:29Z)
• How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN [63.79300884115027]
  Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? We introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-18T04:07:09Z)
• Pre-training Language Model Incorporating Domain-specific Heterogeneous Knowledge into A Unified Representation [49.89831914386982]
  We propose a unified pre-trained language model (PLM) for all forms of text, including unstructured text, semi-structured text, and well-structured text. Our approach outperforms the pre-training of plain text using only 1/4 of the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T16:05:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.