PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 9, 20253 citationsOpen Access

A Comprehensive Analysis of Large Language Model Outputs: Similarity, Diversity, and Bias

View Full Paper
BSBrandon D. SmithUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterMBMohamed Reda BouadjenekDeakin UniversityTKTahsin Alamgir KheyaDeakin University

Key Points

  • Outputs from the same large language model (LLM) show higher similarity than those from human writers, revealing consistency.
  • Among the 12 LLMs under review, models like WizardLM-2-8x22b exhibit high similarity, whereas GPT-4 displays notable output diversity.
  • Assessment involved 5,000 prompts generating around 3 million texts across diverse natural language processing tasks, ensuring comprehensive analysis.
  • Findings shed light on LLM bias and gender representation, highlighting differences in vocabulary, tone, and ethical alignment across models.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a major step toward artificial general intelligence, significantly advancing our ability to interact with technology. While LLMs perform well on Natural Language Processing tasks -- such as translation, generation, code writing, and summarization -- questions remain about their output similarity, variability, and ethical implications. For instance, how similar are texts generated by the same model? How does this compare across different models? And which models best uphold ethical standards? To investigate, we used 5, 000 prompts spanning diverse tasks like generation, explanation, and rewriting. This resulted in approximately 3 million texts from 12 LLMs, including proprietary and open-source systems from OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Mistral. Key findings include: (1) outputs from the same LLM are more similar to each other than to human-written texts; (2) models like WizardLM-2-8x22b generate highly similar outputs, while GPT-4 produces more varied responses; (3) LLM writing styles differ significantly, with Llama 3 and Mistral showing higher similarity, and GPT-4 standing out for distinctiveness; (4) differences in vocabulary and tone underscore the linguistic uniqueness of LLM-generated content; (5) some LLMs demonstrate greater gender balance and reduced bias. These results offer new insights into the behavior and diversity of LLM outputs, helping guide future development and ethical evaluation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Smith et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e82b12e7fc21a300500345https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2505.09056
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Beyond Accuracy: Cross-Linguistic Equity and Socio-Technical Dimensions of Large Language Models2026
  2. 2Evaluations of Large Language Models a Bibliometric analysis2024 · 1 citations
  3. 3Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness2024 · 1 citations
  4. 4A Comparative Analysis to Evaluate Bias and Fairness Across Large Language Models with Benchmarks2024 · 20 citations
  5. 5Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text2024 · 70 citations