arXiv Computation and Language

Recognizing Is Not Reversing: A Controlled Inversion Test of Fact-Preserving News Framing

The paper introduces a controlled inversion test to evaluate whether large language models can reverse known framing transformations in news articles while preserving facts. Using 60 articles and three framing types—evaluative lexis, agency realization, and information salience—the study generates 540 paired variants. Results show high factual preservation (~0.84) but low reversal success (0.044–0.068), indicating that recognizing a framing does not guarantee its undoing.

arXiv Computation and Language
6d ago

Modelling Adjectival Modification Effects on Semantic Plausibility

The paper investigates how adjectival modifiers affect the semantic plausibility of events, using the Adept benchmark of 16,000 English sentence pairs that differ by a single adjective. Experiments show that sentence transformers, despite being conceptually suited to the task, underperform compared to models like RoBERTa. The authors provide an error analysis and discuss the implications of their findings for future work on balancing training and test data.

By Anna Golub, Beate Zywietz, Annerose Eichel
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 15

An Empirical Analysis of Factual Errors in Human-Written Text and Its Application to Factual Error Detection

The paper presents an empirical study of factual errors in human-written text, focusing on corrections in newspaper articles to build a taxonomy of common mistakes such as kanji misconversions and unit errors. It evaluates large language models’ ability to detect these errors, finding that even advanced models like GPT‑5.4 achieve only a 52% word‑level F1 score on synthetic data, underscoring the difficulty of the task. The work highlights the gap in research on factual error detection in human writing compared to LLM hallucinations.

By Kazuma Iwamoto, Kazumasa Omura, Shotaro Ishihara
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

Detect, Remask, Repair: Diffusion Editing for Faithful Summarization of Evolving Contexts

The paper introduces DETECT-REMASK-REPAIR, a diffusion-based method for updating outdated spans in existing summaries while keeping supported content intact. It identifies, masks, and repairs only the changed regions using masked diffusion language models. Experiments on DialogSum and a new StreamSum benchmark show that this localized repair improves faithfulness, reduces repair time to under half a second, and offers trade‑offs between faithfulness, speed, and preservation of the original summary.

By Hao Zou, Zachary Horvitz, Chandhru Karthick, Zhou Yu, Kathleen McKeown
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Value Over Language Model: Detecting Original Contribution in Writing

The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.

By Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean
arXiv AI
Aug 11

How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review

arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.

By Ming Li, Chenguang Wang, Xirui Li, Xinyue Zeng, Dianqi Li, Peng Shi, Dawei Zhou, Tianyi Zhou
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 10

How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions.