The paper investigates how stylistic changes introduced by large language models (LLMs) affect multimodal claim verification, a task that determines whether a textual claim is supported by given evidence. Two rewriting strategies are used: natural rewriting, mimicking typical academic polishing, and controlled injection, adding a single LLM-associated word. Across 11 open‑weight models (2B–38B parameters) from five VLM families, the study finds that most models remain robust to these modifications, showing no significant accuracy drop, though consistent probability shifts—especially under hedging conditions—are observed.
arXiv:2510.13302v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Computational stylometry studies writing style through quantitative textual patterns, enabling applications such as authorship attribution, i...
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.
arXiv:2608. 10715v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing.
arXiv:2606.21359v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses signific...
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent long-form text, however, often add unsupported factual claims. Existing verification techniques improve factuality by grounding generation in external evidence.
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.
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 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.
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.