Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Linguistic Monoculture in LLM-Assisted Language Use

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Shared LLM writing assistance can push authors past the socially useful amount of conformity, and the diversity loss can grow without bound.

desk verdict Clean theory paper on LLM style homogenization: solid dynamics, real externality result, but the headline PoM story is geometry-bound and the paper mostly owns that in the appendix. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27134 v1 pith:XGXKLJSE submitted 2026-07-29 cs.AI cs.CLcs.GT

Suhas Thejaswi , Juhi Kulshreshta , Lutz Oettershagen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.GT
keywords linguisticmonoculturealgorithmicpriceofLLM-assistedwritingauthor–modelcoevolutionpersonalizationstrategicconformityJensen–Shannondiversity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

When many people draft and polish with the same language model, their styles can be pulled toward a shared linguistic norm—what the authors call linguistic monoculture. The paper builds a mathematical model in which authors and models are distributions over linguistic features that repeatedly interact under three regimes: a fixed shared model, a shared model updated from everyone’s writing, and personalized models that mix author-specific and population feedback. Shared assistance can drive population diversity toward a common norm; recursion mainly relocates that norm; personalization can keep a family of distinct author–model equilibria with lasting diversity. The authors then let each person choose how much to conform, trading private gains in clarity and legibility against loss of distinctive voice. Because no one fully values the contrast their style gives others, rational authors over-conform relative to the social optimum, creating a negative externality and a “price of monoculture” that is finite in any fixed case but can become arbitrarily large when distinctiveness matters more than authenticity. Simulations show the three mechanisms leave different long-run diversity levels.

What carries the argument

Three coupled author–model update mechanisms (fixed shared model, recursively updated shared model, personalized recursive models) plus a strategic conformity game whose payoffs trade legibility, authenticity, and pairwise distinctiveness, with the price of monoculture defined as the ratio of socially optimal to Nash long-run quadratic diversity.

What would settle it

In a controlled longitudinal study of LLM-assisted writing, measure population pairwise style diversity under fixed shared, recursively updated, and personalized assistance; if personalization does not preserve higher long-run diversity than shared models, or if calibrated conformity choices do not exceed a planner’s optimum that values others’ distinctiveness, the central strategic claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Individually rational conformity to a shared model-induced linguistic norm can strictly exceed the socially optimal level, because authors do not internalize the value their distinctiveness provides to others. That externality produces a price of monoculture that is finite for each fixed instance but can diverge when distinctiveness dominates authenticity. Shared fixed or recursive models tend to homogenize; personalization can preserve nonzero long-run diversity.

Load-bearing premise

The closed-form over-conformity and unbounded price-of-monoculture results rest on authors having mutually orthogonal style signatures, quadratic payoffs in style distance, and a once-and-for-all fixed conformity choice evaluated only at the long-run limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Widespread reliance on one shared writing model can shrink population-level linguistic diversity even when each user gains clarity.
  • Recursive training on assisted text relocates the common norm without, under common conformity, expanding pairwise style spread.
  • Stronger personalization (more weight on each author’s own feedback) can sustain a family of distinct author–model equilibria.
  • Institutions that reward polished, model-like prose can create pure deadweight conformity when private conformity benefits sit between one and two times the value of distinctiveness.
  • The measured price of monoculture can become arbitrarily large in regimes where people prize distinctiveness far more than authenticity cost.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Platforms that default everyone to the same system prompt and model checkpoint are choosing the high-monoculture mechanism; offering per-user style adapters is a direct lever on the personalization parameter the model isolates.
  • Reader-side welfare (students, reviewers, later researchers who never choose conformity) would only widen the social wedge, so author-only price-of-monoculture estimates are a lower bound on total loss.
  • Academic writing guidelines that score ‘fluency’ and ‘polish’ without scoring voice may be institutionalizing the private conformity reward that drives over-conformity in the game.
  • A natural extension is dynamic conformity: if authors update λ over time from peer and reviewer feedback, the two-externality recursive game the paper leaves open could either dampen or amplify homogenization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper models n authors and LLM output distributions over m linguistic features as points in the simplex, coevolving via convex author updates toward model-influenced targets and (optionally) recursive model updates from author output. For three deployment mechanisms — fixed shared model, recursively updated shared model, personalized models — it proves exponential convergence with explicit equilibria (Props. 3.1–3.5) and shows (Prop. 3.6) that under common conformity recursion relocates the equilibrium author cloud without altering pairwise geometry, while personalization expands pairwise spread by 1/(1−ρλ). Section 4 makes conformity λ_i strategic with quadratic legibility/authenticity/distinctiveness payoffs: under orthogonal signatures the game is separable, conformity imposes a negative externality (Lemma 4.1), the dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium over-conforms relative to the utilitarian optimum (Thm. 4.2), and a symmetric 'price of monoculture' exhibits three regimes and can diverge (Cor. 4.3). Appendix D generalizes to correlated signatures (contraction-based uniqueness, M-matrix conditions preserving over-conformity under nonpositive alignment, a sign-reversal counterexample under positive alignment). Reproducible synthetic simulations compare the mechanisms.

Significance. If the results hold — and the mathematics is correct; I independently verified the load-bearing steps (Eq. (4), the NE/planner FOCs in Thm. 4.2, the three PoM regimes and the welfare-loss identity in Cor. 4.3, and the App. D M-matrix argument) — the paper gives a timely, cleanly proved benchmark connecting LLM-mediated language dynamics to algorithmic monoculture [24,25]. Strengths worth naming: complete proofs with explicit equilibria and rates; the price of monoculture is a derived ratio with closed-form regime conditions (b vs θ, 2θ), not a quantity fit to data; Prop. 3.6's position-vs-geometry separation for JS is sharp and is numerically confirmed (App. F, Fig. 3: quadratic IM1–IM2 gap ≈9×10⁻⁹ under common conformity); Appendix D treats the key structural assumption honestly, including a sign-reversal counterexample; simulations ship public code with paired runs and robustness checks. The framework yields testable mechanism-level predictions (personalization preserves diversity; recursion relocates the norm). Its import is as a stylized benchmark, not an empirically calibrated model, and the strategic conclusions are conditional on signature geometry.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.1–4.2, Thm. 4.2, Cor. 4.3; cf. Eqs. (10)–(11), Cor. D.2, Rem. D.3] The negative conformity externality and the λ_NE ≥ λ_SO ordering are geometry-bound. They hold under orthogonality (Def. 1) and, by Cor. D.2, under nonpositive alignment g_ij≤0; Rem. D.3 shows the externality is positive for aligned signatures with σ_j>σ_i. Since u_i=r_i−q⁰ are deviations from a common norm, positive alignment is empirically plausible (shared register/formality axes). Appendix D contains the needed mathematics; what is missing is prominence and interpretation. Requests: (a) qualify the externality claim in the Abstract and contribution 3 — 'creating a negative externality' currently reads unconditionally; (b) after Def. 1, point to the sign condition (11) and Rem. D.3; (c) add a short discussion of which regime is plausible: if q⁰ sits near the (weighted) barycenter of the r_i, then Σ_{i≠j}g_ij = −Σ_i d_i² < 0, so negative alignment is generic there, whereas a norm outsi
minor comments (7)
  1. [Definition 2] The '≥1' is a consequence of Thm. 4.2(iii)/Cor. D.2, not of the definition; in the positive-alignment regime of Rem. D.3 the ratio can fall below 1. Scope the definition to the over-conformity regime or drop the inequality.
  2. [Remark A.3] The JS↔squared-Euclidean equivalence is local: the χ² weights 1/x_k depend on the midpoint and blow up near the simplex boundary. Soften 'equivalent up to constants,' and, as a cheap robustness check with the released code, report PoM under JS for a few symmetric instances. The qualitative divergence should survive (the NE cloud collapses to q⁰ while the SO profile does not), but the regime boundaries b≈θ, 2θ are surrogate-specific and worth flagging.
  3. [Proposition 3.4] The text says the all-λ_i=1 case 'must be treated separately,' but no treatment appears. Add the short analysis (any common distribution is then a fixed point; the limit is a rate-dependent consensus), complementing the boundary discussion in Rem. A.5.
  4. [§5 vs §4] With m=10 features, signatures live in the 9-dimensional tangent space, so Def. 1 (n≤m−1) cannot hold for the n=100 simulated population. One sentence clarifying that §5 illustrates the §3 dynamics rather than the §4 game would preempt confusion.
  5. [§4.2, Definition 2] PoM is a diversity ratio, not a welfare ratio, so it is not directly comparable to the factor-2 price of anarchy of [25] cited in Related Work. One sentence distinguishing the two objects (Cor. 4.3(iii) already supplies the separate welfare loss) would help readers.
  6. [Remark A.4] 'The inefficiency ... is therefore a lower bound' holds if reader value is additive in D̂ and not offset by reader-side benefits of standardization (clarity, legibility) — the very benefits §1 credits. A half-sentence hedge would make the claim precise.
  7. [Presentation/typos] Some may be extraction artifacts — please check the source: 'aslinguistic' (Abstract); stray comma in 'showing that, shared models' (Abstract and §1); 'F unding' header; App. F's 'modest license agreement' should name the license. In Fig. 1(b), note in the main text that the ρ=0 endpoint matches the IM 2 plateau (that consistency check currently appears only in App. F).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: equilibria, over-conformity, and PoM are derived consequences of explicitly postulated updates and utilities, not refits or self-definitional loops.

full rationale

The paper is a self-contained reduced-form theory paper. Author/model dynamics (Eqs. 1–2), the three interaction mechanisms, and the strategic utility (Eq. 3) are postulated up front; Propositions 3.1–3.6 and Theorem 4.2/Corollary 4.3 then solve those objects for fixed points, dominant-strategy NE, social optima, and the PoM ratio of quadratic diversities. Nothing is fitted to external linguistic data and then relabeled a prediction; synthetic simulations only illustrate the same closed model under chosen priors. Related-work citations (algorithmic monoculture, opinion dynamics, model collapse, accommodation theory) motivate the setting and do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the equilibria. Orthogonal signatures (Definition 1) and quadratic payoffs are modeling assumptions that scope the closed forms—they are not circular reductions of the target claims to their inputs. Scope limits (e.g., externality sign under positive alignment, Remark D.3) are correctness/generality issues, not circularity. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central welfare claim is a theorem inside a reduced-form game. Load-bearing ingredients are modeling choices (style as simplex distributions; linear mixture adaptation; fixed shared q0 for the game; quadratic legibility/authenticity/distinctiveness payoffs; orthogonal signatures for closed forms), not empirical fits. Free parameters appear in simulations and as exogenous preference weights, not as constants fitted to real corpora to ‘confirm’ PoM.

free parameters (4)
  • Conformity / adaptation rates α_i, λ_i
    Exogenous in Section 3; chosen by agents in Section 4 but preference weights that determine them are not estimated from data.
  • Utility weights b_i, c_i, θ_i
    Hand-set structural preference parameters governing legibility, authenticity, and distinctiveness; PoM regimes depend on their ordering (e.g., b vs θ vs 2θ).
  • Model retention β and personalization ρ (γ, δ) = baseline β=0.25, ρ=2/3
    Deployment parameters set in analysis and baseline sims (e.g., β=0.25, ρ=2/3); not fitted to linguistic corpora.
  • Simulation Dirichlet concentration and population size = n=100, m=10, a=1 baseline
    Initialization and scale choices for synthetic figures (n=100, m=10, a∈{0.1,1,5}); illustrate qualitative ordering only.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linguistic style is adequately represented by distributions on a finite feature simplex, with population diversity measured by average pairwise JS (or quadratic) divergence.
    Section 2 and Remark A.1; isolates form variation from semantics/ideas.
  • ad hoc to paper Author updates are convex mixtures p←(1-α)p+α A(q,z) with A a conformity mixture toward preferred r_i and model q.
    Eq. (1) and Props. 3.3–3.5; reduced-form averaging, not derived from a behavioral microfoundation beyond classical opinion dynamics.
  • domain assumption Recursive model updates are convex mixtures of prior model and weighted author outputs (shared or personalized with ρ).
    Eq. (2), IMs 2–3; stylized stand-in for retraining/personalization feedback.
  • ad hoc to paper Long-run payoffs are quadratic in distances to q0, to r_i, and to other authors’ styles; game is played over fixed λ_i at the limiting profile.
    Eq. (3) and timescale-separation paragraph in §4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Author signatures u_i=r_i−q0 are pairwise orthogonal for main closed-form NE/SO/PoM results.
    Definition 1; enables separability and dominant strategies in Theorem 4.2.
  • standard math Standard facts: JS continuity and bounds via L1; 1−x≤e^{−x}; Banach contraction for correlated best responses under a spectral-type condition.
    Used throughout Appendix B–D proofs.
invented entities (2)
  • Price of monoculture (PoM)
    purpose: Ratio of socially optimal to Nash long-run quadratic diversity under strategic conformity.
    Definition 2; linguistic analogue of price-of-anarchy / algorithmic-monoculture welfare gap, not an observed physical quantity.
  • Interaction Mechanisms 1–4 (fixed shared, recursive shared, personalized, mixed subpopulations)
    purpose: Canonical deployment regimes for author–LLM coevolution analysis.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix E; modeling taxonomy rather than empirically validated system classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linguistic Monoculture in LLM-Assisted Language Use." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGXKLJSE

@misc{pith2026260727134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linguistic Monoculture in LLM-Assisted Language Use},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGXKLJSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27134}
}
read the original abstract

Writing and communication are increasingly mediated by large language models (LLMs) that are being used to draft, revise and polish text. Although such assistance can improve clarity and help authors meet institutional expectations, widespread reliance on shared models may reduce population-level variation in linguistic form, a phenomenon we refer to as linguistic monoculture. We develop a mathematical framework in which authors and LLMs are represented as distributions over linguistic features and coevolve through repeated interaction. We analyze three interaction mechanisms: a shared model with a fixed linguistic distribution, a shared model recursively updated from author outputs, and personalized models updated through author-specific and population-level feedback. We characterize the resulting equilibria and convergence rates, showing that, shared models can drive authors toward a common norm, recursive feedback relocates the shared norm without altering pairwise spread under common conformity, and personalization can preserve a family of distinct author-model equilibria with nonzero linguistic diversity. We then endogenize conformity as a strategic choice trading off private benefits from clarity, legibility, and perceived fluency against distinctive style. Within this utility model, individually rational authors may conform more than is socially optimal because they do not internalize the value their distinctiveness provides to others, creating a negative externality and a price of monoculture that is finite for each fixed instance but can grow without bound when distinctiveness dominates authenticity. Synthetic simulations illustrate how fixed shared assistance, recursive feedback, and personalization produce different long-run diversity outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Population-level linguistic diversity under LLM assistance. Panel (a) shows the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Linguistic-diversity trajectories Dt under IM 1–3 for Dirichletpa, . . . , aq initialization. The endpoint ordering IM 2 ă IM 1 ă IM 3 holds at every concentration. Lines show means over 100 runs, and shading denotes ˘1 sample standard deviation. This quantity depends only on the pairwise difference vectors p t i ´ p t j , so a common translation of an author cloud leaves it unchanged. The factor m{8 matches the sec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IM 1 minus IM 2 endpoint diversity as conformity heterogeneity increases. Under common con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Population-size robustness of linguistic diversity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Auxiliary convergence measures under the baseline parameters: (a) author–model divergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: IM 3 linguistic-diversity trajectories for three personalization levels. Larger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of (a) author diversity Dt , (b) diversity among author-facing model distributions Qt , and (c) author–model divergence Mt under heterogeneous IM 4. Lines show mean over 100 runs and shading denotes ˘1 standard deviation. 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    How LLMs distort our written language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18161, 2026

    Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Yanming Wan, Ibrahim Qureshi, Joel Leibo, Max Kleiman-Weiner, and Natasha Jaques. How LLMs distort our written language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18161, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    AI suggestions homogenize writing toward west- ern styles and diminish cultural nuances

    Dhruv Agarwal, Mor Naaman, and Aditya Vashistha. AI suggestions homogenize writing toward west- ern styles and diminish cultural nuances. InProceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–21, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation

    Barrett R Anderson, Jash Hemant Shah, and Max Kreminski. Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. InProceedings of the 16th conference on creativity & cognition, pages 413–425, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1988

    Charles Bazerman.Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1988. ISBN 978-0299116941

    1988

  5. [5]

    Language style as audience design.Language in Society, 13(2):145–204, 1984

    Allan Bell. Language style as audience design.Language in Society, 13(2):145–204, 1984

    1984

  6. [6]

    Cambridge University Press, 2019

    Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad.Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Will the widespread use of large language models in scientific writing undermine scientists’ critical thinking?PLoS biology, 24(6):e3003801, 2026

    Lucas M Bietti and Adrian Bangerter. Will the widespread use of large language models in scientific writing undermine scientists’ critical thinking?PLoS biology, 24(6):e3003801, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Prompt architecture induces methodological artifacts in large language models.PLOS one, 20(4):e0319159, 2025

    Melanie Brucks and Olivier Toubia. Prompt architecture induces methodological artifacts in large language models.PLOS one, 20(4):e0319159, 2025

    2025

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Communication Accommodation Between Large Language Models and Users Across Cultures (Student Abstract)

    Rong-Ching Chang and Hao-Chuan Wang. Communication Accommodation Between Large Language Models and Users Across Cultures (Student Abstract). InAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 29331–29333, 2025. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.V39I28.35241. URL https://mlanthology.org/aaai/...

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Naming game.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2019

    Guanrong Chen and Yang Lou. Naming game.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    How to reach linguistic consensus: A proof of convergence for the naming game.Journal of theoretical biology, 242(4):818–831, 2006

    Bart De Vylder and Karl Tuyls. How to reach linguistic consensus: A proof of convergence for the naming game.Journal of theoretical biology, 242(4):818–831, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Reaching a consensus.Journal of the American Statistical association, 69(345): 118–121, 1974

    Morris H DeGroot. Reaching a consensus.Journal of the American Statistical association, 69(345): 118–121, 1974

    1974

  5. [13]

    Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content.Science Advances, 10(28):eadn5290, 2024

    Anil R Doshi and Oliver P Hauser. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content.Science Advances, 10(28):eadn5290, 2024. 13

    2024

  6. [14]

    Linguistic relativity from reference to agency.Annual Review of Anthropology, 44: 207–224, 2015

    Nick J Enfield. Linguistic relativity from reference to agency.Annual Review of Anthropology, 44: 207–224, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5):429–448, 2009

    Nicholas Evans and Stephen C Levinson. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5):429–448, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Social influence and opinions.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15(3-4):193–206, 1990

    Noah E Friedkin and Eugene C Johnsen. Social influence and opinions.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15(3-4):193–206, 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Human-LLM coevolution: Evidence from academic writing

    Mingmeng Geng and Roberto Trotta. Human-LLM coevolution: Evidence from academic writing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 12689–12696, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    The impact of large language models in academia: from writing to speaking

    Mingmeng Geng, Caixi Chen, Yanru Wu, Yao Wan, Pan Zhou, and Dongping Chen. The impact of large language models in academia: from writing to speaking. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 19303–19319, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Cambridge University Press, 2016

    Howard Giles.Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Gumperz and Stephen C

    John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, editors.Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, volume 17 of Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

  13. [21]

    Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation.J

    Rainer Hegselmann and Ulrich Krause. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation.J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul., 5(3), 2002

    2002

  14. [22]

    Continuum, London, 2009

    Ken Hyland.Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. Continuum, London, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views

    Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views. InProceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–15, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22):e2018340118, 2021

    Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22):e2018340118, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Price of anarchy of algorithmic monoculture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00444, 2026

    Robert Kleinberg, Erald Sinanaj, and ´Eva Tardos. Price of anarchy of algorithmic monoculture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00444, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Delving into LLM- assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary.Science Advances, 11(27): eadt3813, 2025

    Dmitry Kobak, Rita Gonz´ alez-M´ arquez, Em˝ oke-´Agnes Horv´ at, and Jan Lause. Delving into LLM- assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary.Science Advances, 11(27): eadt3813, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2nd edition, 1986

    Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar.Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2nd edition, 1986. ISBN 9780691028323

    1986

  20. [28]

    Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.Nature Human Behaviour, 9(12):2599–2609, 2025

    Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, Haley Lepp, Wenlong Ji, Xuandong Zhao, Hancheng Cao, Sirui Liu, Safyr He, Yifan Cui, et al. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.Nature Human Behaviour, 9(12):2599–2609, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy.IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 37(1):145–151, 1991

    Jianhua Lin. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy.IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 37(1):145–151, 1991

    1991

  22. [30]

    Linguistic relativity.Annual review of anthropology, 26(1):291–312, 1997

    John A Lucy. Linguistic relativity.Annual review of anthropology, 26(1):291–312, 1997

    1997

  23. [31]

    Green, and Kostadin Kushlev

    Kibum Moon, Adam E. Green, and Kostadin Kushlev. Homogenizing effect of large language models (llms) on creative diversity: An empirical comparison of human and chatgpt writing.Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 6:100207, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100207. 14

    2025

  24. [32]

    Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 642–669, 2024

    Vishakh Padmakumar and He He. Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 642–669, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods.Frontiers in Psy- chology, 13:964658, 2023

    Valentina N Pescuma, Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Antje Sauermann, Roland Sch¨ afer, Aria Adli, Felix Bildhauer, Markus Egg, Kristina H¨ ulk, Aine Ito, et al. Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    AI and the problem of knowledge collapse.AI & Society, 40(5):3249–3269, 2025

    Andrew J Peterson. AI and the problem of knowledge collapse.AI & Society, 40(5):3249–3269, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data.Nature, 631(8022):755–759, 2024

    Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Yiren Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, Ross Anderson, and Yarin Gal. AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data.Nature, 631(8022):755–759, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    The shrinking landscape of linguistic diversity in the age of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11266, 2025

    Zhivar Sourati, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Meltem Ozcan, Colin McDaniel, Alireza Ziabari, Jackson Trager, Ala Tak, Meng Chen, Fred Morstatter, and Morteza Dehghani. The shrinking landscape of linguistic diversity in the age of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11266, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    The homogenizing effect of large language models on human expression and thought.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2026

    Zhivar Sourati, Alireza S Ziabari, and Morteza Dehghani. The homogenizing effect of large language models on human expression and thought.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Swales.Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings

    John M. Swales.Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990

    1990

  31. [39]

    polished

    Dustin Wright, Sarah Masud, Jared Moore, Srishti Yadav, Maria Antoniak, Peter Ebert Christensen, Chan Young Park, and Isabelle Augenstein. Epistemic diversity and knowledge collapse in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04226, 2025. 15 A Remarks and Further Clarif...

    2025

  32. [40]

    For every authori, Uipσq“ d2 i 2 “ pθi´b iqσ2 i ´c ip1´σ iq2‰ ` θi 2pn´1q ÿ j‰i d2 j σ2 j´ θi n´1 σi ÿ j‰i gijσj.(8) The corresponding quadratic long-run diversity is D8pλq“ 1 n nÿ i“1 d2 i σ2 i ´ 2 npn´1q ÿ iăj gijσiσj.(9)

  33. [41]

    For every pairi‰j, BUj Bλi “ θj n´1 ` σjgij´σ id2 i ˘ .(10) Consequently, an increase in authori’s conformity imposes a nonpositive externality on authorjif and only if σid2 i ěσ jgij.(11) In particular, the externality is nonpositive at every conformity profile wheneverg ijď0

  34. [42]

    Define Ai :“b i`c i´θ i. IfA ią0, authori’s payoff is strictly concave inσ i, conditional onσ ´i, and their unique best response is BRipσ´iq“Π r0,1s » ——– ci´ θi pn´1qd 2 i ř j‰i gijσj Ai fi ffiffifl ,(12) whereΠ r0,1s denotes projection ontor0,1s. If, in addition, max iPrns θ...

  35. [43]

    Let ¯θ´i :“ 1 n´1 ÿ j‰i θj. Utilitarian welfare can be written as Wpσq“C`h Jσ´ 1 2 σJSσ,(16) whereCis independent ofσ,h i“c id2 i , and Sii“d 2 i ` bi`c i´θ i´ ¯θ´i ˘ ,(17) Sij“ θi`θ j n´1 gij, i‰j.(18) IfSis positive definite, welfare is strictly concave and has a unique maxi...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.