ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Detecting "large language models fingerprint" for Japanese texts generated by six LLMs.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly since the release of ChatGPT by OpenAI on November 30, 2022. This vogue comes to mind us "Can we distinguish LLMs-generated texts each other?" "What stylometric features are effective for differentiating LLMs such as fingerprints?" The purpose of this study was to distinguish the 300 Japanese texts (e.g., public comments) generated by six LLMs [ChatGPT (GPT5), Claude 3.5, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Llama 3.1, and Perplexity]. Methods: To this end, we explored the effective stylometric features [e.g., function-word unigrams, part of speech (POS) bigrams, and phrase patterns] using the following analyses: (1) UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) to visually explore distributional differences among LLMs, (2) Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost with leave-one-out cross-validation to differentiate LLMs, and (3) SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) based on Random Forest to identify effective stylometric features. Results: First, UMAP demonstrated the separation of texts among the five LLMs except for Llama 3.1, which displayed substantial overlap with the other five LLMs. Second, RF achieved the highest performance across all stylometric features, with macro F1 scores exceeding 0.95 and reaching 1.00 for several LLMs. The detection performance of XGBoost was lower than that of RF, with the macro F1 scores ranging from 0.88 to 0.94. Finally, SHAP revealed LLM-specific patterns in function-word unigrams, POS bigrams, and phrase patterns. Conclusion: These findings indicate that Japanese public comments generated by the six LLMs can be accurately distinguished by focusing on the combination or patterns of stylometric features, suggesting LLM-specific linguistic fingerprints regardless of similarities in the underlying transformer architectures.
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.