arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Benjamin V. Ineichen

Publications and source records attributed to Benjamin V. Ineichen.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Accelerated Drift of Scientific Prose in the LLM Era: Evidence from an Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

Every scientific text is embedded in the writing norms of its time: it reflects earlier publications while also shaping the texts that follow. The growing use of LLM-based writing tools introduces a new factor in this evolving system, but the linguistic changes coinciding with their emergence remain insufficiently understood. We investigate whether the trajectories of scientific-preprint writing changed in rate or direction after conversational LLMs became publicly accessible, using the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 as the observational breakpoint. We compare pre- and post-2022 trajectories across vocabulary, punctuation, readability, and syntax in abstracts from arXiv's artificial intelligence, statistics, and quantitative biology categories and from medRxiv. Using interrupted time-series regression, we find substantial post-2022 changes across multiple feature families and research domains, including increases in average word length, reduced formula-based readability, and declines in maximum dependency-tree depth and sentence-level depth variation. Individual features follow different dynamics: some lexical markers accelerate persistently, while others rise and then recede. Our findings show that isolated marker frequencies capture only part of the shift: changes in the rate, direction, and structure of linguistic trajectories provide complementary evidence of broader post-2022 change in scientific-preprint writing. More broadly, these findings motivate monitoring scientific writing as a multidimensional, evolving system rather than through a fixed set of LLM-associated markers.

cs.CL↗

Making Sense of Animal-to-Human Drug Development Evidence: Stakeholder Practices, Challenges, and Requirements for AI Tools

Animal models are widely used to study human biology and health interventions, yet translating findings from animal studies to humans remains challenging. Evidence across preclinical and clinical research informs experimental and translational decisions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly reshaping how this evidence is searched, synthesized, and used, but it remains unclear how they should support the diverse stakeholders involved in assessing animal-to-human evidence. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 stakeholders to examine their evidence practices, challenges, and expectations for AI support. We found that stakeholders approach the same incomplete evidence base with different goals, expertise, and heuristics. Participants valued AI particularly for locating, screening, and extracting evidence, but were more cautious about automated interpretation and quality judgments. They emphasized transparency, source traceability, uncertainty communication, and human oversight. Based on these findings, we derive design implications for role-sensitive AI tools that support more systematic and transparent reasoning about animal-to-human translation.

cs.HC↗