aiqbench analysis
This study identifies a specific degradation in Large Language Model scientific writing, where post-training on preference data causes models to overuse the phrase "rather than" to dismiss alternatives, thereby reducing precision and annoying reviewers. The research highlights how reward modeling incentives can inadvertently introduce stylistic biases that lower the quality of academic discourse, even when the underlying facts are correct. This finding underscores the critical need for RLHF tuning strategies that preserve nuance and avoid generating verbose, unhelpful disclaimers in technical writing.
I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers
arXiv:2610.10092v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For better or worse, LLMs are by now used routinely for scientific writing.\footnote{This paper is no exception; we did use AI to assist with writing some of the sections (see Acknowledgments).} Many have noticed that recent models fill papers with unnecessary antithesis, stating over and over what the work does not do, in ways that do not contribute to its precision or quality of expression and annoy reviewers \emph{rather than impressing them}. We study the construction \emph{rather than} in ACL papers from 2019, ACL-style arXiv papers from 2026, and papers written by GPT models from the same titles and abstracts. Its rate in 2026 is seven times the 2019 rate, and higher still in the GPT papers. Two annotators, blind to the source, find almost no 2019 use \emph{annoying} and about one in ten 2026 uses; they seldom agree on which, yet about half of 2026 papers contain a use that annoys each of them. \emph{Annoying} uses present the rejected alternative less favorably than legitimate uses. Raters of preference data and open reward models favor the construction, and an instruction to be honest promotes it. We conjecture that it is a side effect of post-training on pairwise preferences, which credit a disavowal in a single response and cannot register its cost across a text.
Abstract:For better or worse, LLMs are by now used routinely for scientific writing.\footnote{This paper is no exception; we did use AI to assist with writing some of the sections (see Acknowledgments).} Many have noticed that recent models fill papers with unnecessary antithesis, stating over and over what the work does not do, in ways that do not contribute to its precision or quality of expression and annoy reviewers \emph{rather than impressing them}. We study the construction \emph{rather than} in ACL papers from 2019, ACL-style arXiv papers from 2026, and papers written by GPT models from the same titles and abstracts. Its rate in 2026 is seven times the 2019 rate, and higher still in the GPT papers. Two annotators, blind to the source, find almost no 2019 use \emph{annoying} and about one in ten 2026 uses; they seldom agree on which, yet about half of 2026 papers contain a use that annoys each of them. \emph{Annoying} uses present the rejected alternative less favorably than legitimate uses. Raters of preference data and open reward models favor the construction, and an instruction to be honest promotes it. We conjecture that it is a side effect of post-training on pairwise preferences, which credit a disavowal in a single response and cannot register its cost across a text.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.10092 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.10092v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10092 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 · 309 words
Related coverage
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

Hint-based CoT faithfulness evals still mostly work on Claude
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026