How Robust Is Multimodal Claim Verification to LLM Rewriting?

The number of paper submissions to major AI conferences has increased dramatically in recent years, substantially increasing the peer-review workload of researchers. At the same time, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support peer review, both by individual reviewers and by conference organizations. While LLM capabilities have improved considerably, their evaluations may be influenced by linguistic characteristics that are unrelated to scientific content. In this work, we introduce a controlled experimental framework for studying such effects by systematically perturbing the linguistic style of research papers. Specifically, we rewrite papers to exhibit (i) linguistic features associated with native or non-native English writing, and (ii) high- or low-confidence linguistic features. To construct these interventions, we derive fine-grained rewriting instructions grounded in the linguistic literature and apply them using LLMs. Crucially, our interventions are designed to preserve the underlying scientific content. We then evaluate the resulting papers using different LLM reviewers. Our experiments expose a critical vulnerability in LLM-based peer review: reviewers systematically reward confident rhetoric independent of scientific content, raising serious concerns about the robustness of their assessments.

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where it often matters how confidently a claim is expressed, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve the degree of confidence. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty during transformations intended to preserve meaning. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2x more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4.5 increases certainty in 20% of examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.