ArticlePloS one2025
Stylometry can reveal artificial intelligence authorship, but humans struggle: A comparison of human and seven large language models in Japanese.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detecting "large language models fingerprint" for Japanese texts generated by six LLMs.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the artificial intelligence (AI) detection potential using stylometric analysis in Study 1 and examine the AI detection abilities of humans in Study 2. In Study 1, we compared 100 human-written public comments with 350 texts generated by seven large language models (LLMs) (ChatGPT [GPT-4o and o1], Claude3.5, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Llama3.1, and Perplexity) using multidimensional scaling (MDS) to visualize differences by focusing on three stylometric features (phrase patterns, part-of-speech bigrams, and unigrams of function words). In general, each stylometric feature can distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. In particular, three integrated stylometric features achieved perfect discrimination on MDS dimensions. Interestingly, only Llama3.1 exhibited distinct characteristics compared with the other six LLMs. The random forest classifier also achieved 99.8% accuracy. In Study 2, we performed an online survey to assess the Japanese participants' AI detection abilities by presenting LLM-generated and human-written texts, as used in Study 1. 403 participants tackled "AI or Human" judgment task and estimated their own confidence, revealing that overall human AI-detection ability was limited. Moreover, in our materials, more advanced ChatGPT(o1), plausibly reflecting relatively greater fluency and polish, tends to mislead the participants to believe "human-written" texts compared with ChatGPT(GPT-4o) and improves their confidence for their own judgments. Furthermore, an additional comment from the survey suggested that participants primarily relied on superficial impressions based on phraseology, expression, the ends of words, conjunctions, and punctuation marks in judgments. These findings have important implications for various scenarios, including public policy, education, and marketing, where the rapid and reliable detection of AI-generated content is increasing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.