CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.DLcs.AIcs.CL2026-06-28

Em-ergence of the em-dash: a population-level rise in em-dash frequency in medRxiv preprints at the dawn of the large-language-model era

Przemysław Czuma

Large language models (LLMs) can leave subtle stylistic traces in assisted text; one of the most cited is the em-dash (Unicode U+2014). Yet no one has measured whether em-dash use has changed in the scientific literature. This study, pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (HFT8C), used the full set of medRxiv full-text XML preprints from the official Text-and-Data-Mining resource. The primary cohort was first, original versions deposited 2020-2025 with an extractable Discussion section of at least 500 characters (N = 69,632). The primary endpoint was the presence of at least one em-dash in the Discussion; the principal measure was the absolute change in its prevalence between the pre-ChatGPT era (before 30 November 2022) and the post-ChatGPT era, estimated with a logistic model with standard errors clustered by first author. The analysis plan (six supporting analyses, six sensitivity analyses, two falsification tests) was frozen before any confirmatory result was computed. Em-dash prevalence in Discussion sections rose from 4.23% before ChatGPT to 11.58% afterward, an absolute increase of 7.35 percentage points (95% CI 6.94-7.77; odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 2.77-3.17). The rise was not a sharp jump but a gradual, delayed acceleration: near 4% through 2023, 8.0% in 2024, and 20.3% in 2025. The effect survived every feasible sensitivity analysis (7.35-7.60 pp) and both falsification tests; a placebo split within the pre-LLM era showed no meaningful change (+0.13 pp, 95% CI -0.33 to +0.58), and was essentially absent in boilerplate sections. Independent LLM-associated lexical markers and within-paper section comparisons pointed the same way. The em-dash is a population-level indicator, not a per-paper detector of LLM use, and the design cannot establish causality; it shows that something in how scientific literature is written changed markedly in the early 2020s, and roughly when.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-23

Agentic coding without the cloud: evaluating open-weight large language models on longitudinal data preparation tasks

Mack Nixon, Liam Wright, Yevgeniya Kovalchuk, Alison Fang-Wei Wu, Martin Danka, Andy Boyd, et al.

Large language models (LLMs) and agents are now widely used tools in code development, with data typically sent to third-party cloud-based models. Their adoption in research using personal data is constrained by governance requirements that typically prohibit data transmission to…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-24

From Isolated Tasks to Structured Capabilities: A Multilayer Taxonomy for Large Language Models

Shixin Fang, Jiachen Wo, Wenjuan Qin, Sihang Jiang, Yanghua Xiao

Large language model (LLM) evaluation spans diverse tasks and benchmarks, yet evidence remains organized around tasks rather than the capabilities they probe. This fragmentation limits cross-study comparison, obscures capabilities tasks recruit, and makes coverage gaps difficult…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-23

Artificial Epanorthosis: Why large language models overuse a classical rhetorical figure, and how to mitigate it

Federico Boggia

A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen «This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation». This essay argues that th…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-24

Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

Pengzhao Lyu, Yeun Joon Kim, Hanlin Xiao, Yingyue Luna Luan

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six wid…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.CVcs.HC2026-07-31

FriendBench: Benchmarking Dyadic Familiarity Inference in Humans and Multimodal Large Language Models

Jeffrey M. Girard, Jason Z. Zheng, Jacqueline R. Vertino, Antony D'Avirro, Benjamin Peloquin

Reading a social situation often depends on behavior, not words alone. We introduce FriendBench, a benchmark for inferring whether two people are already familiar or are meeting as strangers, from a 20-second clip of a dyadic ice-breaker conversation. Every pair answers the same…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-23

Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness

Yeoktatt Cheah, María Pérez-Ortiz, Noah Y. Siegel, Oana-Maria Camburu

We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process. While existing work focuses on evaluating faithfulness or using…

View free PDFSource page