I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2610.10092 (cs)
[Submitted on 7 Oct 2026]
Title:I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers
View a PDF of the paper titled I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers, by Olga Zamaraeva and 3 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
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.
| Comments: | 30 pages, 2 figures, 48 tables |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2610.10092 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2610.10092v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10092
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers, by Olga Zamaraeva and 3 other authors
Additional Features
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.