have been identified

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "have been identified" is correct and usable in written English.
You could use it in a variety of contexts; for example: "Several key issues have been identified that need to be addressed."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

No suspects have been identified.

The New York Times

Few have been identified.

The New York Times - Health

None have been identified.

The New York Times

No threats have been identified, he said.

The New York Times - Sports

At least four officers have been identified.

Independent

Two more have been identified since then.

The Guardian

Not all the savings have been identified.

The New York Times

More ancient clusters have been identified.

Encyclopedia Britannica

So far, none have been identified.

The New York Times

Eight different porphyrias have been identified.

Encyclopedia Britannica

About 300 species have been identified.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "have been identified", ensure that the context clearly indicates who or what made the identification. This adds clarity and authority to your statement.

Common error

Avoid using "have been identified" without specifying the source or method of identification. This can weaken your argument and leave the reader questioning the validity of the claim.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "have been identified" functions as the passive voice of the verb "identify", indicating that a subject has been recognized or discovered. Ludwig AI indicates this is commonly used in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

37%

Science

30%

Encyclopedias

7%

Less common in

Wiki

6%

Academia

5%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "have been identified" is a common and grammatically sound construction used to indicate that something has been recognized or discovered. As Ludwig AI confirms, it's widely used across various domains like news, science, and encyclopedias. For best practice, specify the source of identification to add clarity. Related alternatives include "were detected" and "were discovered", each subtly shifting the emphasis. By understanding these nuances, writers can effectively and accurately use "have been identified" in their writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were discovered

Emphasizes the finding of something new or unexpected.

were detected

Focuses on the act of discovering something that was previously hidden or unknown.

were recognized

Highlights the acknowledgement or acceptance of something's existence or validity.

were pinpointed

Suggests a precise and accurate identification of a specific location or item.

were established

Implies that something has been proven or validated.

were ascertained

Indicates a formal or official determination of something.

have emerged

Focuses on the act of something becoming known or apparent.

have surfaced

Implies that something has become visible or known after being hidden.

were unearthed

Suggests the uncovering of something that was buried or concealed.

were diagnosed

Specifically related to identifying diseases or conditions.

FAQs

How can I use "have been identified" in a sentence?

Use "have been identified" to indicate that something has been recognized or discovered. For example, "Several potential risks "have been identified" in the project plan".

What is a more formal way to say "have been identified"?

Consider using phrases like "were ascertained" or "were established" for a more formal tone. For instance, "The root causes of the problem "were ascertained" after careful analysis".

What's the difference between "have been identified" and "have been detected"?

"Have been identified" implies recognition and categorization, while "have been detected" simply means that something has been noticed. For example, "New security threats "have been detected", but their sources "have been identified" only after detailed analysis".

What are some common errors when using "have been identified"?

A common mistake is omitting the source of identification, making the statement vague and less credible. Always specify who or what identified the item in question to provide context and authority.