arXiv:2605. 09030v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Raw cosine in the 768-dimensional output space of the Contrastive Style Descriptor (CSD) is now widely read as an absolute, calibrated style-fidelity score for text-to-image and style-imitation evaluation.
arXiv:2608. 14435v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen image embeddings from models such as CLIP are increasingly used to classify paintings by art-historical style, with high reported accuracy.
arXiv:2605. 00924v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-generated content (AIGC) detectors are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as academic integrity screening, yet their reliability rests on a fundamental paradox: as language models are trained on human-written corpora, the statistical boundary between AI and human writing will inevitably dissolve as models improve.
Artistic image synthesis aims to recreate the expressive visual identity of a target artist, yet existing methods often fail to capture an artist's global style. Conventional style transfer methods transfer the style of one or a few reference artworks to a content image in a One-to-One manner, making them effective for artwork-level stylization but limited in representing the broader stylistic distribution of an artist.
arXiv:2607. 08256v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Best-of-$N$ (BoN) inference improves content consistency in zero-shot text-to-speech by selecting from $N$ candidates with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) verifier.
The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why.
arXiv:2605. 20731v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Text-to-image models now generate graphic design at production scale, yet their supervision still comes primarily from photo-style preference datasets with a single overall verdict per comparison.
arXiv:2608. 01666v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: However, whether these judges truly evaluate the scientific substance of ideas or are influenced by superficial stylistic presentation remains an open question.
arXiv:2608. 07713v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Latent medical image generators usually treat the tokenizer as fixed preprocessing.
arXiv:2607. 03296v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Crossmodal correspondences between sound and taste are well established in psychology and neuroscience, but largely absent from content-based multimedia retrieval.
arXiv:2606. 23767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Headline accuracies on the Tuebingen cause-effect pairs are routinely compared across papers even though each is measured under its authors' own protocol -- different pair subsets, weightings, model-selection, and decision rates.
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.
Accuracy changes after language-model self-revision are usually interpreted as changes in reasoning. We show this can fail at the answer-extraction boundary, and test the failure causally rather than only observationally.