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

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

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsdifferencesmodelsadvancedfeaturesgrammaticalrhetoricaldetect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
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)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

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

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.

  2. How Human-Like Are Large Language Models? A Register-Aware Linguistic Evaluation Framework

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The authors introduce a register-aware evaluation framework that compares LLM outputs to human reference corpora via Biber's lexico-grammatical features and MMD across five English registers.

  3. How Human-Like Are Large Language Models? A Register-Aware Linguistic Evaluation Framework

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new evaluation framework using MMD on Biber features shows LLMs deviate from human linguistic distributions across registers, with closest models varying by register rather than size.