aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a systematic stylistic drift in large language models where they overuse classical rhetorical devices like epanorthosis due to training data biases and RLHF preferences. The study proposes practical mitigation strategies using lightweight LoRA adapters and specific instructions to calibrate model output back toward authentic human rhetorical rates across different genres. For AI practitioners, this highlights the critical need for register-specific calibration rather than a blanket removal of stylistic features during fine-tuning.
Artificial Epanorthosis: Why large language models overuse a classical rhetorical figure, and how to mitigate it
arXiv:2607.21498v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen {\guillemotleft}This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation{\guillemotright}. This essay argues that the overuse is a trained disposition, driven mainly by a training distribution rich in promotional prose and by preference tuning (RLHF) that rewards confident, emphatic phrasing; the left-to-right nature of generation is an amplifier rather than the root cause. Building on evidence that models diverge from human rhetorical style, and on Fontanier's classification of epanorthosis as a figure of thought, it sets out a programme that scores the figure against genre-specific human baselines through an Epanorthosis Index (density relative to the human rate). A first measurement, on three sizes of one instruction-tuned model family, finds mis-calibration by register in both directions: the models overshoot in oratory (about twofold, near threefold in Italian, concentrated in the larger tiers) and undershoot in informal question-and-answer writing, while matching humans in argument, journalism, and encyclopedic prose. Three constructive contributions follow: a survey of mitigation techniques centred on lightweight LoRA adapters; a demonstration, in Italian, that a one-line instruction cuts the figure by half to nearly three-quarters and that a supervised-fine-tuning adapter removes it almost entirely, with a scaling coefficient that dials the reduction back onto the human rate; and the argument that the target is calibration to the human rate for each genre, not elimination. It closes on the stakes: the real risk is that we begin to write like the machines.
Abstract:A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen «This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation». This essay argues that the overuse is a trained disposition, driven mainly by a training distribution rich in promotional prose and by preference tuning (RLHF) that rewards confident, emphatic phrasing; the left-to-right nature of generation is an amplifier rather than the root cause. Building on evidence that models diverge from human rhetorical style, and on Fontanier's classification of epanorthosis as a figure of thought, it sets out a programme that scores the figure against genre-specific human baselines through an Epanorthosis Index (density relative to the human rate). A first measurement, on three sizes of one instruction-tuned model family, finds mis-calibration by register in both directions: the models overshoot in oratory (about twofold, near threefold in Italian, concentrated in the larger tiers) and undershoot in informal question-and-answer writing, while matching humans in argument, journalism, and encyclopedic prose. Three constructive contributions follow: a survey of mitigation techniques centred on lightweight LoRA adapters; a demonstration, in Italian, that a one-line instruction cuts the figure by half to nearly three-quarters and that a supervised-fine-tuning adapter removes it almost entirely, with a scaling coefficient that dials the reduction back onto the human rate; and the argument that the target is calibration to the human rate for each genre, not elimination. It closes on the stakes: the real risk is that we begin to write like the machines.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.21498 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.21498v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.21498 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 358 words
Related coverage
Beyond Poetry: Can Large Language Models Generate Classical Arabic Maqamat?
arXiv · Sep 24, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
Reasoning or Rhetoric? An Empirical Analysis of Moral Reasoning Explanations in Large Language Models
arXiv · Oct 15, 2026
Dario Amodei, The Physicist Who Left OpenAI to Build Anthropic
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 30, 2026