SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Yuri Bizzoni

Publications and source records attributed to Yuri Bizzoni.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

Humans Introduce, Models Elaborate: Asymmetric Narrative Agency in Human-LLM Co-Writing

Human-LLM co-writing is increasingly used for open-ended text generation, but much prior work focuses on final outputs rather than the interactional dynamics through which stories are produced. We study turn-based collaborative storytelling across three matched conditions: Human-Human (HH), Human-LLM (HA), and LLM-LLM (AA). Using a shared storytelling paradigm, we measure how agents align, introduce novel material, and influence narrative development through turn-level measures of valence adaptation, semantic novelty, transience, and resonance. Our results show that HA co-writing is not intermediate between HH and AA collaboration. Instead, it displays a distinctive asymmetry where humans tend to introduce more novel and persistent narrative material, while LLMs tend to elaborate and stabilize the existing context. These findings suggest that, in this setting, LLMs function less as human co-authors and more as adaptive narrative amplifiers that reshape how agency is distributed in collaborative writing.

cs.HC

Directional Alignment and Narrative Agency in Human-LLM Co-Writing

We investigate narrative agency in human-LLM creative co-writing, asking who drives story development in turn-based collaboration. Using a new corpus of 87 human-LLM co-written stories, we apply sentiment and semantic modeling to quantify affective alignment and semantic novelty in turn-taking, and directional measures to assess which agent shapes narrative progression. Our results show asymmetric influence: human turns introduce greater semantic novelty and are more likely to shape subsequent developments, whereas LLM contributions predominantly elaborate on human-introduced elements. At the sentiment level, alignment is also asymmetric, but more bidirectional: LLMs exhibit stronger turn-level emotional adaptation than humans, but both agents track each other's emotional valence and LLMs show an independent tendency to more positive emotional baselines. These findings indicate a complementary division of labor in human-LLM co-writing, where humans drive narrative innovation and direction, while LLMs act as adaptive amplifiers that sustain coherence and elaborate emerging narratives.

cs.HC

Is Sentiment Banana-Shaped? Exploring the Geometry and Portability of Sentiment Concept Vectors

Use cases of sentiment analysis in the humanities often require contextualized, continuous scores. Concept Vector Projections (CVP) offer a recent solution: by modeling sentiment as a direction in embedding space, they produce continuous, multilingual scores that align closely with human judgments. Yet the method's portability across domains and underlying assumptions remain underexplored. We evaluate CVP across genres, historical periods, languages, and affective dimensions, finding that concept vectors trained on one corpus transfer well to others with minimal performance loss. To understand the patterns of generalization, we further examine the linearity assumption underlying CVP. Our findings suggest that while CVP is a portable approach that effectively captures generalizable patterns, its linearity assumption is approximate, pointing to potential for further development. Code available at: github.com/lauritswl/representation-transfer

cs.CL

Continuous sentiment scores for literary and multilingual contexts

Sentiment Analysis is widely used to quantify sentiment in text, but its application to literary texts poses unique challenges due to figurative language, stylistic ambiguity, as well as sentiment evocation strategies. Traditional dictionary-based tools often underperform, especially for low-resource languages, and transformer models, while promising, typically output coarse categorical labels that limit fine-grained analysis. We introduce a novel continuous sentiment scoring method based on concept vector projection, trained on multilingual literary data, which more effectively captures nuanced sentiment expressions across genres, languages, and historical periods. Our approach outperforms existing tools on English and Danish texts, producing sentiment scores whose distribution closely matches human ratings, enabling more accurate analysis and sentiment arc modeling in literature.

cs.CL

Says Who? Effective Zero-Shot Annotation of Focalization

Focalization describes the way in which access to narrative information is restricted or controlled based on the knowledge available to knowledge of the narrator. It is encoded via a wide range of lexico-grammatical features and is subject to reader interpretation. Even trained annotators frequently disagree on correct labels, suggesting this task is both qualitatively and computationally challenging. In this work, we test how well five contemporary large language model (LLM) families and two baselines perform when annotating short literary excerpts for focalization. Despite the challenging nature of the task, we find that LLMs show comparable performance to trained human annotators, with GPT-4o achieving an average F1 of 84.79%. Further, we demonstrate that the log probabilities output by GPT-family models frequently reflect the difficulty of annotating particular excerpts. Finally, we provide a case study analyzing sixteen Stephen King novels, demonstrating the usefulness of this approach for computational literary studies and the insights gleaned from examining focalization at scale.

cs.CL

Good Books are Complex Matters: Gauging Complexity Profiles Across Diverse Categories of Perceived Literary Quality

In this study, we employ a classification approach to show that different categories of literary "quality" display unique linguistic profiles, leveraging a corpus that encompasses titles from the Norton Anthology, Penguin Classics series, and the Open Syllabus project, contrasted against contemporary bestsellers, Nobel prize winners and recipients of prestigious literary awards. Our analysis reveals that canonical and so called high-brow texts exhibit distinct textual features when compared to other quality categories such as bestsellers and popular titles as well as to control groups, likely responding to distinct (but not mutually exclusive) models of quality. We apply a classic machine learning approach, namely Random Forest, to distinguish quality novels from "control groups", achieving up to 77\% F1 scores in differentiating between the categories. We find that quality category tend to be easier to distinguish from control groups than from other quality categories, suggesting than literary quality features might be distinguishable but shared through quality proxies.

cs.CL

Reviewer Preferences and Gender Disparities in Aesthetic Judgments

Aesthetic preferences are considered highly subjective resulting in inherently noisy judgements of aesthetic objects, yet certain aspects of aesthetic judgement display convergent trends over time. This paper present a study that uses literary reviews as a proxy for aesthetic judgement in order to identify systematic components that can be attributed to bias. Specifically we find that judgement of literary quality in newspapers displays a gender bias in preference of male writers. Male reviewers have a same gender preference while female reviewer show an opposite gender preference. While alternative accounts exist of this apparent gender disparity, we argue that it reflects a cultural gender antagonism.

cs.CY

Sentiment Dynamics of Success: Fractal Scaling of Story Arcs Predicts Reader Preferences

We explore the correlation between the sentiment arcs of H. C. Andersen's fairy tales and their popularity, measured as their average score on the platform GoodReads. Specifically, we do not conceive a story's overall sentimental trend as predictive \textit{per se}, but we focus on its coherence and predictability over time as represented by the arc's Hurst exponent. We find that degrading Hurst values tend to imply degrading quality scores, while a Hurst exponent between .55 and .65 might indicate a "sweet spot" for literary appreciation.

cs.CL

The Effect of Context on Metaphor Paraphrase Aptness Judgments

We conduct two experiments to study the effect of context on metaphor paraphrase aptness judgments. The first is an AMT crowd source task in which speakers rank metaphor paraphrase candidate sentence pairs in short document contexts for paraphrase aptness. In the second we train a composite DNN to predict these human judgments, first in binary classifier mode, and then as gradient ratings. We found that for both mean human judgments and our DNN's predictions, adding document context compresses the aptness scores towards the center of the scale, raising low out of context ratings and decreasing high out of context scores. We offer a provisional explanation for this compression effect.

cs.CL