Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 cited by

Is ChatGPT Transforming Academics' Writing Style?

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 2404.08627 v2 pith:BCAJI7BD submitted 2024-04-12 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DLcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.DLcs.LG
keywords abstractsanalysischatgptstylewritingacademicsarxivfrequency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Based on one million arXiv papers submitted from May 2018 to January 2024, we assess the textual density of ChatGPT's writing style in their abstracts through a statistical analysis of word frequency changes. Our model is calibrated and validated on a mixture of real abstracts and ChatGPT-modified abstracts (simulated data) after a careful noise analysis. The words used for estimation are not fixed but adaptive, including those with decreasing frequency. We find that large language models (LLMs), represented by ChatGPT, are having an increasing impact on arXiv abstracts, especially in the field of computer science, where the fraction of LLM-style abstracts is estimated to be approximately 35%, if we take the responses of GPT-3.5 to one simple prompt, "revise the following sentences", as a baseline. We conclude with an analysis of both positive and negative aspects of the penetration of LLMs into academics' writing style.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Most biomedical publications show signs of LLM-assisted writing

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analysis of 1.19 million biomedical papers estimates that 89% showed signs of LLM-assisted writing by December 2025, using extrapolated word frequencies.

  2. Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    After ChatGPT-style words were publicly flagged in early 2024, their frequency in arXiv abstracts dropped, while other common LLM-favored words kept rising, suggesting authors are adapting their writing to avoid detection.

  3. 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...

  4. How Large Language Models Are Changing MOOC Essay Answers: A Comparison of Pre- and Post-LLM Responses

    cs.CY 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Student essays in a large MOOC became longer, less lexically varied, and more likely to contain LLM-associated words after ChatGPT's release, while broad essay topics stayed similar.

  5. Humans Coexist, So Must Embodied Artificial Agents

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Coexistence, defined as sustained meaningful and reciprocal interaction among an agent, humans, and environment, is presented as a necessary design goal for embodied AI.

  6. Benchmarking Linguistic Diversity of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    State-of-the-art LLMs generate less linguistically diverse text than humans on creative tasks, and several training and deployment choices systematically shift lexical, syntactic, and semantic diversity.

  7. AIGS: Generating Science from AI-Powered Automated Falsification

    cs.LG 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Baby-AIGS is a multi-agent system that automates research through explicit falsification, outperforming its baseline on three ML tasks but lagging human experts.

  8. NLLG Quarterly arXiv Report 09/24: What are the most influential current AI Papers?

    cs.DL 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A quarterly bibliometric report identifies the top-40 most influential AI arXiv papers of 2023-2024 and finds that they show fewer AI-generated text markers than random papers.

Pith tools