Long-form analogies generated by chatGPT lack human-like psycholinguistic properties
Open accessAbstract
Psycholinguistic analyses provide a means of evaluating large language model (LLM) output and making systematic comparisons to human-generated text. These methods can be used to characterize the psycholinguistic properties of LLM output and illustrate areas where LLMs fall short in comparison to human-generated text. In this work, we apply psycholinguistic methods to evaluate individual sentences from long-form analogies about biochemical concepts. We compare analogies generated by human subjects enrolled in introductory biochemistry courses to analogies generated by chatGPT. We perform a supervised classification analysis using 78 features extracted from Coh-metrix that analyze text cohesion, language, and readability (Graesser et. al., 2004). Results illustrate high performance for classifying student-generated and chatGPT-generated analogies. To evaluate which features contribute most to model performance, we use a hierarchical clustering approach. Results from this analysis illustrate several linguistic differences between the two sources.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Psycholinguistics provides insight into how the brain processes function words and grammatical markers distinctively from lexical content words, revealing correlations with socio-cultural categories such as gender, age, and native language.
“Psychology, particularly psycholinguistics, provides insight into how the brain processes function words and grammatical markers distinctively from lexical content words, revealing correlations with socio-cultural categories such as gender, age, and native language [Chambers et al., 2013;Nerbonne, 2014;Seals and Shalin, 2023], which are pivotal in understanding identity and social affiliations [Ar”
From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Seals and Shalin, 2023
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions
Wu, J., Yang, S., Zhan, R., Yuan, Y., Chao, L. S., & Wong, D. F. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00549 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Exploring the frontiers of LLMs in psychological applications: a comprehensive review
Ke, L., Tong, S., Cheng, P., & Peng, K. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11297-5 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges
Huang, B., Chen, C., & Shu, K. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3715073.3715076 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“…distinctively from lexical content words, revealing correlations with socio-cultural categories such as gender, age, and native language (Chambers et al., 2013, Nerbonne, 2014, Seals and Shalin, 2023), which are pivotal in understanding identity and social affiliations (Argamon et al., 2009).”
AI Like ChatGPT, Users Like Us: How ChatGPT Drivers and AI Efficacy Affect Consumer Behaviour
Lee, W.-J., Lee, H. G., & Cha, M. (2023) · Virtual Economics · doi:10.34021/ve.2023.06.04(3 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Potentials of ChatGPT for Annotating Vaccine Related Tweets
Biswas, M. R., Mohsen, F., Shah, Z., & Zaghouani, W. (2023) · International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) · doi:10.1109/snams60348.2023.10375433 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models?
Huang, W., Bi, K., Cai, Y., Chen, W., Guo, J., & Cheng, X. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3773966.3777988
- Authors
- Seals, S. M., & Shalin, V. L.
- Affiliations
- Wright State University (US)
- University of South Carolina (US)
- ORCID
- Shalin, Valerie L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.04537
- OpenAlex
- W7067366900
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Defense
- Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, ChatGPT, Coh-Metrix, textual cohesion, readability, biochemistry education, hierarchical clustering
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
