arXiv AI
Aug 18
Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models
arXiv:2608. 14630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases.
DeflectBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Rhetorical Fallacy Generation in LLMs
DeflectBench is a new benchmark that evaluates how large language models (LLMs) generate rhetorical fallacies when prompted. The study tests 23,990 generations from four leading models using three deflection strategies (whataboutism, ad hominem, red herring), seven prompt framings, and 80 claims across four controversy levels. Results show that refusal to produce fallacies depends mainly on request structure, with prompt framing and fallacy type dramatically affecting compliance rates.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 9
Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas
arXiv:2601. 21433v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing.
arXiv AI
Jun 26
ConflictScore: Identifying and Measuring How Language Models Handle Conflicting Evidence
arXiv:2606. 26437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist.
arXiv AI
Aug 13
TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs
arXiv:2608. 11415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.
arXiv AI
4d ago
The Invisible Editorial Layer: Formalizing Undisclosed Inference-Time Steering, Probability Placement, and the Attribution Problem in Deployed Language Models
The paper argues that modern inference pipelines add an unseen layer of control between a language model’s frozen weights and its output, altering probability distributions before token selection. It introduces the concepts of the Inference Attribution Problem, Probability Placement, and Inference Policy Transparency to describe how such interventions can bias generated language toward specific frames and how these biases cannot be traced solely to model weights. The authors discuss the governance, security, and economic implications of these undisclosed inference policies, referencing EU AI Act, Digital Services Act, and FTC doctrines.
arXiv Computation and Language
5d ago
Claim-Level Confidence Calibration for Reliable Decision Making with Large Language Models
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate
arXiv:2606. 01736v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments.
arXiv AI
Jun 10
Janus: A Benchmark for Goal-Conditioned Information Distortion in LLMs
arXiv:2606. 10852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM deception is often evaluated through direct markers such as fabricated claims, explicit lies, or strategic concealment.
arXiv AI
Jun 19
DeFrame: Debiasing Large Language Models Against Framing Effects
arXiv:2602. 04306v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring their fair responses across demographics has become crucial.
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 1
Measuring & Mitigating Over-Alignment for LLMs in Multilingual Criminal Law Courts
arXiv:2606. 23375v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While the wider applicability of LLMs in the legal field is currently debated due to their reliability and the gravity of any errors, narrow uses with well-understood and mitigated risks have emerged.
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.