Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.
By Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Yanming Wan, Ibrahim Qureshi, Joel Z. Leibo, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Natasha Jaques
arXiv:2609.36214v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by people whose first language is not English, yet these users have been shown to receive systematic...
By Yusheng Zhou, Eleanor Lin, David Jurgens
arXiv:2608. 06589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While large language model outputs are frequently analysed as a collective super variety termed "AI language," this chapter argues that this perspective coexists with distinct, model-specific linguistic signatures akin to human idiolects.
By Karolina Rudnicka, Thomas Stephan Juzek
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.
By Zhengyang Shan, Yukyung Lee, Sophie Hao
The study examines whether domain‑adaptive continued pretraining (DAPT) on a learner‑writing corpus (EFCAMDAT) can enhance transformer‑based automated essay scoring (AES) for English proficiency tests. Researchers applied DAPT to BERT, RoBERTa, and DistilBERT and compared the adapted models with their original checkpoints on the FCE and IELTS datasets, evaluating both in‑domain scoring and few‑shot cross‑dataset transfer. Results show that full‑corpus DAPT yields mixed effects, while proficiency‑specific DAPT often outperforms full‑corpus DAPT and sometimes even the non‑adapted baseline, though benefits vary by proficiency composition and encoder architecture and do not consistently transfer across tests.
By Duy Anh Nguyen
arXiv:2608. 03507v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Historical language change affects morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, yet computational studies typically examine these levels with incompatible representations and therefore cannot determine whether they evolve together across languages.
By Gagan Bhatia, Julian Schlenker, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, Steffen Eger
LuxIT is a monolingual instruction‑tuning dataset for Luxembourgish, created by synthesizing instruction‑answer pairs from native texts using the DeepSeek‑R1‑0528 model and a quality‑assurance LLM‑as‑judge process. The resulting 227,507 high‑quality pairs were used to fine‑tune 14 LLMs (≤15 B parameters), yielding an average accuracy increase of +5.37 percentage points on standardized Luxembourgish proficiency exams and improvements in macro‑averaged F1 on nine of the fourteen downstream NLP tasks. These findings demonstrate that synthetic monolingual data can effectively enhance LLM performance in low‑resource languages and reveal the complex relationship between exam performance and practical NLP gains.
By Julian Valline, Cedric Lothritz, Siwen Guo, Jordi Cabot
arXiv:2606. 20152v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially transformed Automated Essay Scoring (AES), yet the internal mechanisms underlying LLM-based scoring remain poorly understood.
By Jiaxu Zuo, Mu You, Kaixin Lan, Tao Fang, Yujia Huo, Henghua Shen, Lidia S. Chao, Derek F. Wong
The paper introduces Latent Space Refusal Anchoring (LSR‑Anchoring), a training‑free technique that extracts a refusal direction from English prompts and applies it to the residual stream of instruction‑tuned models at inference time. The primary variant, Mean‑Activation Steering (MAS), works across several architectures (Llama‑3‑8B, Llama‑3.1‑70B, Mistral‑7B‑Instruct, Qwen2.5‑7B), restoring safety for low‑resource African languages with minimal performance loss, while a refined SAE‑Derived Steering (SDS) further reduces KL divergence without degrading legitimate prompt performance. The method shows positive transfer for Yoruba, Igbo, Igala, and Hausa, but fails for Arabic, suggesting a geometric mismatch rather than a data scarcity issue.
By Godwin Abuh Faruna
We introduce Dango, a 1. 8B-parameter large language model designed for controlled studies of L1-to-L2 (Japanese-to-English) transfer in second language acquisition (SLA).
arXiv:2607. 21498v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen {\guillemotleft}This is not a course.
By Federico Boggia
A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen «This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation».