arXiv AI

Review Text as a Leading Indicator of Displayed Reputation in Platform Rating Systems: Evidence from 34 U.S. Short-Term Rental Markets

arXiv:2504. 14053v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Rating systems on accommodation platforms suffer from a familiar problem: nearly every listing displays a nearly perfect score, so the number that is supposed to separate good listings from bad ones barely varies.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviews

The paper introduces Self‑Conditioning, an unsupervised, information‑theoretic estimator that measures the amount of external information in peer reviews. It compares the likelihood of a review under its original production context with the likelihood when that context is augmented by hints extracted from the review itself. On the IntelLabs benchmark, Self‑Conditioning can perfectly distinguish fully‑delegated reviews from machine‑polished ones, remains largely insensitive to surface rewriting, and shows that increased external input drives scores toward human‑like values, unlike standard ATD baselines.

By Matthieu Dubois, Pablo Piantanida, Fran\c{c}ois Yvon
arXiv AI
Aug 11

How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review

arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.

By Ming Li, Chenguang Wang, Xirui Li, Xinyue Zeng, Dianqi Li, Peng Shi, Dawei Zhou, Tianyi Zhou
arXiv AI
Aug 19

The Authenticity Gap in Human Evaluation

The paper critiques the conventional method of averaging human ratings to evaluate natural language generation (NLG) systems, arguing that it relies on assumptions about annotators that are often violated, especially when using Likert scales. These violations can even reverse true preferences, leading to inaccurate system rankings. The authors propose a more theoretically sound protocol and introduce a new system-level probabilistic assessment (SPA) for open-ended tasks like story generation, which successfully recovers expected model orderings where the standard protocol fails.

By Kawin Ethayarajh, Dan Jurafsky
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

The study investigates how prior scores influence large language model (LLM) judgments in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. By testing three prompt conditions—no metadata, revision framing, and anchored metadata containing prior scores—the authors find that prior scores systematically bias evaluations, shifting ratings toward those scores across 192,000 attempts. The bias also affects categorical decisions, blocking 48% of error corrections and flipping 10.18% of correct judgments, and is not mitigated by Chain-of-Thought or a warning, underscoring the need for careful context engineering.

By Ante Kapetanovic, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Mercep, Tomislav Duricic, Emanuel Lacic