arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 2

Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.

By Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan, Adrian de Wynter, Sujay Kumar Jauhar
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14

I Am No One: Style-Aware Paraphrasing for Text Anonymization

The paper introduces a style-aware paraphrasing method for text anonymization that leverages pretrained large language models to build compact stylistic profiles from minimal samples and rewrite text to suppress identifiable style markers while preserving meaning. It demonstrates that this approach reduces authorship attribution F1 scores by 60‑70% on blog and review datasets, outperforming both differential privacy‑based and non‑DP baselines, and maintains content quality and readability.

By Ahmed Sohair Khan, Estrid He, Monica Wachowicz, Elham Naghizade
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

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

The paper introduces a register-aware framework to evaluate how human-like large language models (LLMs) are, focusing on linguistic feature distributions rather than factual correctness. It uses Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and 67 Biber lexico‑grammatical features to compare LLM‑generated texts with human reference corpora across different registers. Experiments on seven instruction‑tuned, open‑source models across five English datasets show that all LLMs deviate from human baselines, with closeness to human language varying by register and not by model size.

By Bj\"orn Nieth, Marianna Gracheva, Michaela Mahlberg, Bjoern Eskofier, Emmanuelle Salin