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.
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: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...
The study investigates bias in large language model (LLM) judges by having ten LLMs evaluate narrative constraint selections rather than generated text. Results show that self-preference largely disappears under blind evaluation when quality and evaluator severity are controlled, but self- and other-labels alone shift scores bidirectionally when quality is matched. The authors conclude that authorship attribution drives evaluation bias and that open-ended, ground‑truth‑free tasks can effectively study LLM judge behavior.
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.
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.
The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.
The paper introduces a training‑free method for uncovering prompt‑conditional stylistic axes in large language models (LLMs). By repeatedly sampling completions of a single prompt at high temperature and applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the pooled hidden activations, the authors automatically label the resulting axes using the extreme (pole) generations. Validation against 245 human‑elicited stylistic annotations shows that, for the Qwen‑3.5‑4B‑Instruct model, the top two axes align with human dimensions with 72.8% precision and 43.6% macro‑recall, and 75.6% of validity ratings confirm the axes’ polar generations, while other models exhibit varying degrees of discoverability.
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.
arXiv:2604. 26269v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In the era of large language models, creative writing quality lacks a computable theoretical anchor.
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...
The study evaluates whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can produce open‑ended aesthetic critiques comparable to humans. Eight open‑weight MLLMs (7 B–397 B) and GPT‑5.5 were tested on 1,227 r/photocritique posts under various prompts, revealing that reference‑based similarity metrics often misrepresent model performance, while shorter critiques and image‑omission had limited impact. Human judges and annotators found the models’ critiques largely different from human ones, noting that models tend to be overly comprehensive and repetitive rather than selective and specific.
Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench.