LLM assisted writing deserves empirical evaluation
Xuan Zhong Feng, Yi Lin, Yiye Zhang, Chunhua Weng, Yifan Peng
Abstract
LLM-assisted writing is often treated as a detection problem, as it raises questions about clarity, integrity, equity, and evaluation. An analysis of 69,209 Health Informatics papers links it to more focused presentation, broader citation practices, and more globally distributed authorship. These patterns do not prove better science, but they support evaluating manuscripts by scholarly quality and accountability rather than by tool use.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Monitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM Evaluations
Leon Bergen, Usha Bhalla, Andrew Lee et al.
Reporting Practice Matters: The Impact of Reference Choice on Chest X-ray Report Evaluation
Daniel P. Jeong, Charles Q. Li, Hossein Hosseiny et al.
Long-Lived Characters, Local Inference: Incremental Memory Maintenance for Game NPCs
Zimu Xu
Beyond Outcomes: Dual-View Relational Learning for Efficient Agent Benchmarking
Xinshuai Guo, Junjie Wu, Dolly Deng et al.
How Much is a Human Right Worth? ECtHR-NPD: A Benchmark for Predicting Non-Pecuniary Damage Awards
Yanyi Pu, Damian A. Gonzalez-Salzberg, Zheng Yuan et al.
Structured Claim-Level Discourse Representations for Dense Health Narratives
Farnoushsadat Nilizadeh, Elham Pourabbas Vafa, Shirin Nilizadeh et al.