Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong mathematical problem-solving abilities but frequently fail on problems that deviate syntactically from their training distribution. We identify a systematic failure mode, syntactic blind spots, in which models misapply familiar reasoning strategies to problems that are semantically straightforward but phrased in unfamiliar ways. These errors are not due to gaps in mathematical competence, but rather reflect a brittle coupling between surface form and internal representation. To test this, we rephrase incorrectly answered questions using syntactic templates drawn from correct examples. These rephrasings, which preserve semantics while reducing structural complexity, often lead to correct answers. We quantify syntactic complexity using a metric based on Dependency Locality Theory (DLT), and show that higher DLT scores are associated with increased failure rates across multiple datasets. Our findings suggest that many reasoning errors stem from structural misalignment rather than conceptual difficulty, and that syntax-aware interventions can reveal and mitigate these inductive failures.

Generative Artificial Intelligence is transforming how English as a foreign language students write. Still, little is known about how students manipulate text generated by generative AI during the writing process. This study investigates how EFL secondary school students integrate and modify AI-generated text when completing an expository writing task. The study employed an exploratory mixed-methods design. Screen recordings were collected from 29 Hong Kong secondary school students who attended an AI-assisted writing workshop and recorded their screens while using generative AI to write an article. Content analysis with hierarchical coding and thematic analysis with a multiple case study approach were adopted to analyze the recordings. 15 types of AI-generated text edits across seven categories were identified from the recordings. Notably, AI-initiated edits from iOS and Google Docs emerged as unanticipated sources of AI-generated text. A thematic analysis revealed four patterns of students' editing behaviors based on planning and drafting direction: planning with top-down drafting and revising; top-down drafting and revising without planning; planning with bottom-up drafting and revising; and bottom-up drafting and revising without planning. Network graphs illustrate cases of each pattern, demonstrating that students' interactions with AI-generated text involve more complex cognitive processes than simple text insertion. The findings challenge assumptions about students' passive, simplistic use of generative AI tools and have implications for developing explicit instructional approaches to teaching AI-generated text editing strategies in the AFL writing pedagogy.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have prompted academic concerns about their impact on academic writing. Existing studies have primarily examined LLM usage in academic writing through quantitative approaches, such as word frequency statistics and probability-based analyses. However, few have systematically examined the potential impact of LLMs on the linguistic characteristics of academic writing. To address this gap, we conducted a large-scale analysis across 823,798 abstracts published in last decade from arXiv dataset. Through the linguistic analysis of features such as the frequency of LLM-preferred words, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, cohesion, readability and sentiment, the results indicate a significant increase in the proportion of LLM-preferred words in abstracts, revealing the widespread influence of LLMs on academic writing. Additionally, we observed an increase in lexical complexity and sentiment in the abstracts, but a decrease in syntactic complexity, suggesting that LLMs introduce more new vocabulary and simplify sentence structure. However, the significant decrease in cohesion and readability indicates that abstracts have fewer connecting words and are becoming more difficult to read. Moreover, our analysis reveals that scholars with weaker English proficiency were more likely to use the LLMs for academic writing, and focused on improving the overall logic and fluency of the abstracts. Finally, at discipline level, we found that scholars in Computer Science showed more pronounced changes in writing style, while the changes in Mathematics were minimal.

With the advancement of large language models (LLMs), an increasing number of student models have leveraged LLMs to analyze textual artifacts generated by students to understand and evaluate their learning. These student models typically employ pre-trained LLMs to vectorize text inputs into embeddings and then use the embeddings to train models to detect the presence or absence of a construct of interest. However, how reliable and robust are these models at processing language with different levels of complexity? In the context of learning where students may have different language backgrounds with various levels of writing skills, it is critical to examine the robustness of such models to ensure that these models work equally well for text with varying levels of language complexity. Coincidentally, a few (but limited) research studies show that the use of language can indeed impact the performance of LLMs. As such, in the current study, we examined the robustness of several LLM-based student models that detect student self-regulated learning (SRL) in math problem-solving. Specifically, we compared how the performance of these models vary using texts with high and low lexical, syntactic, and semantic complexity measured by three linguistic measures.

Students are increasingly relying on Generative AI (GAI) to support their writing-a key pedagogical practice in education. In GAI-assisted writing, students can delegate core cognitive tasks (e.g., generating ideas and turning them into sentences) to GAI while still producing high-quality essays. This creates new challenges for teachers in assessing and supporting student learning, as they often lack insight into whether students are engaging in meaningful cognitive processes during writing or how much of the essay's quality can be attributed to those processes. This study aimed to help teachers better assess and support student learning in GAI-assisted writing by examining how different writing behaviors, especially those indicative of meaningful learning versus those that are not, impact essay quality. Using a dataset of 1,445 GAI-assisted writing sessions, we applied the cutting-edge method, X-Learner, to quantify the causal impact of three GAI-assisted writing behavioral patterns (i.e., seeking suggestions but not accepting them, seeking suggestions and accepting them as they are, and seeking suggestions and accepting them with modification) on four measures of essay quality (i.e., lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, text cohesion, and linguistic bias). Our analysis showed that writers who frequently modified GAI-generated text-suggesting active engagement in higher-order cognitive processes-consistently improved the quality of their essays in terms of lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, and text cohesion. In contrast, those who often accepted GAI-generated text without changes, primarily engaging in lower-order processes, saw a decrease in essay quality. Additionally, while human writers tend to introduce linguistic bias when writing independently, incorporating GAI-generated text-even without modification-can help mitigate this bias.

We revisit the phenomenon of syntactic complexity convergence in conversational interaction, originally found for English dialogue, which has theoretical implication for dialogical concepts such as mutual understanding. We use a modified metric to quantify syntactic complexity based on dependency parsing. The results show that syntactic complexity convergence can be statistically confirmed in one of three selected German datasets that were analysed. Given that the dataset which shows such convergence is much larger than the other two selected datasets, the empirical results indicate a certain degree of linguistic generality of syntactic complexity convergence in conversational interaction. We also found a different type of syntactic complexity convergence in one of the datasets while further investigation is still necessary.

This study investigates human and ChatGPT text simplification and its relationship to dependency distance. A set of 220 sentences, with increasing grammatical difficulty as measured in a prior user study, were simplified by a human expert and using ChatGPT. We found that the three sentence sets all differed in mean dependency distances: the highest in the original sentence set, followed by ChatGPT simplified sentences, and the human simplified sentences showed the lowest mean dependency distance. Introduction Enhancing the understandability of biomedical information is vital in fostering health-literate patients. However, empirical evidence shows that readability formulas are not appropriate tools [1], [2].

English as foreign language_EFL_students' use of text generated from artificial intelligence_AI_natural language generation_NLG_tools may improve their writing quality. However, it remains unclear to what extent AI-generated text in these students' writing might lead to higher-quality writing. We explored 23 Hong Kong secondary school students' attempts to write stories comprising their own words and AI-generated text. Human experts scored the stories for dimensions of content, language and organization. We analyzed the basic organization and structure and syntactic complexity of the stories' AI-generated text and performed multiple linear regression and cluster analyses. The results show the number of human words and the number of AI-generated words contribute significantly to scores. Besides, students can be grouped into competent and less competent writers who use more AI-generated text or less AI-generated text compared to their peers. Comparisons of clusters reveal some benefit of AI-generated text in improving the quality of both high-scoring students' and low-scoring students' writing. The findings can inform pedagogical strategies to use AI-generated text for EFL students' writing and to address digital divides. This study contributes designs of NLG tools and writing activities to implement AI-generated text in schools.

Background: Recently, ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and will result in a significant change in the education system and information generation in the future. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models -- both lack scientific rigour. Objective: Through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays, we systematically assess the quality of the AI-generated content. Methods: A large corpus of essays was rated using standard criteria by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis with a consideration of the linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Results: Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher for quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays, e.g., it is characterized by fewer discourse and epistemic markers, but more nominalizations and greater lexical diversity. Conclusions: Our results clearly demonstrate that models like ChatGPT outperform humans in generating argumentative essays. Since the technology is readily available for anyone to use, educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilized the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives.

Simplifying text's grammar and structure is a useful skill most of us acquire in school, but AI typically has a tougher go of it, owing to a lack of linguistic knowledge. That said, scientists at Facebook AI Research and Inria are progressing toward a simplification model dubbed ACCESS (AudienCe-CEntric Sentence Simplification), which they claim enables customization of text length, amount of paraphrasing, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and other parameters while preserving coherency. "Text simplification can be beneficial for people with cognitive disabilities, such as aphasia, dyslexia, and autism, but also for second language learners and people with low literacy," wrote the researchers in a preprint paper detailing their work. "The type of simplification needed for each of these audiences is different … Yet, research in text simplification has been mostly focused on developing models that generate a single generic simplification for a given source text with no possibility to adapt outputs for the needs of various target populations. To this end, the team tapped seq2seq, a general-purpose encoder-decoder framework that takes data and its context as inputs.