Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the overuse of epanorthosis, a rhetorical figure, in large language models, attributing it to training distributions rich in promotional content and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) that favors emphatic expression. The authors introduce the Epanorthosis Index to measure this rhetorical tendency against human baselines across different genres, revealing that models significantly miscalibrate their use of epanorthosis, particularly in oratory and informal writing. Mitigation strategies are proposed, including lightweight LoRA adapters and targeted fine-tuning, which effectively reduce epanorthosis while aiming for calibration to human rhetorical styles rather than complete elimination.
Language models may be overusing self-correction by up to threefold in oratory, risking a shift in our writing style to mirror machine-generated text.
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.