Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.16107 v2 pith:5GTMVTAX submitted 2024-10-21 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsdifferencesmodelsadvancedfeaturesgrammaticalrhetoricaldetect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of writing grammatical text that follows instructions, answers questions, and solves problems. As they have advanced, it has become difficult to distinguish their output from human-written text. While past research has found some differences in surface features such as word choice and punctuation, and developed classifiers to detect LLM output, none has studied the rhetorical styles of LLMs. Using several variants of Llama 3 and GPT-4o, we construct two parallel corpora of human- and LLM-written texts from common prompts. Using Douglas Biber's set of lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical features, we identify systematic differences between LLMs and humans and between different LLMs. These differences persist when moving from smaller models to larger ones, and are larger for instruction-tuned models than base models. This observation of differences demonstrates that despite their advanced abilities, LLMs struggle to match human stylistic variation. Attention to more advanced linguistic features can hence detect patterns in their behavior not previously recognized.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theory

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using HPSG grammar analysis, the authors find that LLM-generated NYT-style text has a different syntactic and lexical distribution from human text, with LLMs more similar to each other than to humans.

  2. Artificial Epanorthosis: Why large language models overuse a classical rhetorical figure, and how to mitigate it

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs overuse the 'not X, but Y' self-correction pattern in persuasive registers and underuse it in informal Q&A; a prompt or a detachable LoRA dial adjusts it to human levels.

  3. When Detection Fails: The Power of Fine-Tuned Models to Generate Human-Like Social Media Text

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuned LLMs generate social media text that evades state-of-the-art detectors and human readers, dropping detection accuracy from up to 99.9% to near chance.

Pith tools