The study shows that when people enjoy an artwork, they are more likely to believe it was created by a human, regardless of whether it was actually AI-generated or not. In a large online Turing Test, 22.1 percentage points more of respondents who favored a picture thought it was human-made, and this pattern held across all images and detection methods. Even those who were skeptical of AI art often preferred AI-generated pieces but still attributed them to humans, indicating a strong link between aesthetic preference and perceived authorship.
By Zihan Chen, Di Zhu, Lei Nico Zheng
arXiv:2510.08831v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As AI writing tools become widespread, we need to understand how both humans and machines evaluate literary style, a domain where objective standar...
By Wouter Haverals, Meredith Martin
arXiv:2608.28986v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: LLMs often struggle with modern Korean poetry, producing outputs that resemble "line-broken prose." We address two coupled tasks: detecting whether a K...
By Keunhyeung Park, Seunguk Yu, YoungBin Kim
arXiv:2608. 11452v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Text-to-image (T2I) models are increasingly asked to illustrate literary and cultural content, yet we cannot measure how well an image renders the meaning of a poem.
By Haoqi Hu, Tongji Luo, Li Zhang, Boning Zhou
arXiv:2609. 28245v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in creative text generation, yet their ability to produce culturally grounded and stylistically constrained literary forms remains underexplored.
By AbdulRahman A. Morsy (Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, George Washington University, Washington DC, United States), Aya Zirikly (Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, George Washington University, Washington DC, United States, Center for Speech and Language Processing, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD, United States)
The paper examines whether existing automatic methods can reliably assess creativity in text produced by large language models (LLMs). By collecting human ratings on 11 creativity dimensions for both human and AI short stories, the authors compare these judgments with automated metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The results show a significant misalignment: automated metrics and LLM judges favor AI-generated stories and show near-zero correlation with human assessments, revealing fundamental limitations in current computational approaches to evaluating creative text.
By Alessandro Tutone, Giorgio Franceschelli, Mirco Musolesi
arXiv:2609.23951v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Expressive speech synthesis has advanced through prosody modeling, yet generating structured poetic speech, such as haiku, remains challenging. Prior w...
By Devangi Sharma, Sophia Judicke, Glenda Tan, Conrad Schaumburg, Shinji Watanabe
However, whether these judges truly evaluate the scientific substance of ideas or are influenced by superficial stylistic presentation remains an open question. To address this question, we propose SciStyleBench, a unified three-component benchmark for diagnosing and mitigating stylistic bias in LLM-based idea evaluation: (i) First, SciStyleStage, a three-stage evaluation environment that applies controlled stylistic perturbations to fixed scientific content across three settings no context, fixed-domain context, and open-domain retrieval context, covering 600 scientific ideas and 15 style variants, with 9,000 evaluation instances per setting; (ii) Second, SciStyleMetrics, a set of quantitative measures, including Style Bias Index (SBI), Substance Recognition Rate (SRR), and Adversarial Win Rate (AWR), to characterize how stylistic variation affects scoring stability, substance discrimination, and ranking robustness; (iii) Third, SciStyleExtractor, a plug-and-play evaluation module that separates presentation style from scientific content by predicting style type and deviation before style-conditioned evaluation, enabling us to assess whether style awareness reduces stylistic bias.
AesCanvas is a new dataset and benchmark that evaluates image aesthetic models on two fronts: CritiqueCanvas, which contains 519,136 instruction–response pairs for long‑form, multi‑dimensional critique across photography, painting, and virtual imagery, and ContextCanvas, which offers 301 expert‑reviewed use scenarios to assess contextual aesthetic suitability. The benchmark tests closed‑source, open‑weight general, and aesthetic‑specific multimodal large language models, revealing that models excel at critique generation but lag in context‑sensitive judgment. The study shows that aesthetic specialization does not reliably transfer to contextual suitability and highlights the need for culturally situated, evidence‑grounded suitability as a distinct objective for aesthetic modeling.
By Xuanwei Hu, Haoyu Dong, Kejun Wu, Tianyi Liu, Jianjun Gao
arXiv:2310.00436v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Authorship identification uses patterns in writing to infer who wrote a text, but those patterns also reflect topic, genre, and register. This surv...
By Haining Wang
The paper evaluates five large language models as zero‑shot annotators of four social constructs—self‑esteem, self‑control, seeking belonging, and seeking recognition—in English song lyrics. It examines repeated‑measurement reliability, cross‑model convergence, and the transferability of consensus labels to supervised classification. Results show varying reliability across constructs, with self‑esteem being most stable and seeking recognition least stable, and indicate that consensus labels contain learnable signal for downstream tasks.
By E. Cho Smith, Samuel Ho, Dawn Laux
The paper evaluates how well six popular large language models can imitate the writing style of individual authors using short product reviews. Two prompt styles—simple and stylometric—were tested, and authorship mimicry was measured with cosine distance and embedding visualisations. Results show that while Gemini 3 Pro performed best, it largely copied training text, and overall most models struggled to converge on target author style, highlighting the need to differentiate genuine imitation from direct reuse.
By Harshit Gupta, Shunichi Ishihara