Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing

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 2502.09606 v2 pith:BWFKL6GT submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.DLcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.DLcs.LG
keywords frequencyllmsacademicwordschatgptcoevolutionwerewriting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With a statistical analysis of arXiv paper abstracts, we report a marked drop in the frequency of several words previously identified as overused by ChatGPT, such as "delve", starting soon after they were pointed out in early 2024. The frequency of certain other words favored by ChatGPT, such as "significant", has instead kept increasing. These phenomena suggest that some authors of academic papers have adapted their use of large language models (LLMs), for example, by selecting outputs or applying modifications to the LLM-generated content. Such coevolution and cooperation of humans and LLMs thus introduce additional challenges to the detection of machine-generated text in real-world scenarios. Estimating the impact of LLMs on academic writing by examining word frequency remains feasible, and more attention should be paid to words that were already frequently employed, including those that have decreased in frequency due to LLMs' disfavor.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Who Gets Seen in the Age of AI? Adoption Patterns of Large Language Models in Scholarly Writing and Citation Outcomes

    cs.CY 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Analyzing 98,000 Scopus computer science papers, the paper finds a global rise in AI-like writing after ChatGPT and reports regional differences in citation returns, but the key differential-gain result is statistical...

  2. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

Pith tools