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.
When people share experiences online, they often express thoughts in two ways: a star rating and a written review. In sentiment analysis, ratings are widely used as convenient weak labels for textual sentiment, yet whether the two actually agree is rarely questioned.
arXiv:2606. 16344v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Travelers increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which hotel to book, making these systems gatekeepers of property visibility -- yet what moves their recommendations is undocumented.
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
arXiv:2607. 14174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial sentiment extraction has largely relied on news text and supervised extraction against return labels alone, leaving 10-K filings -- and volatility, the target risk disclosure is arguably best suited to informing -- comparatively unexplored.
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.
arXiv:2205. 11930v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Human ratings are the gold standard in NLG evaluation.
arXiv:2607. 29516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review.
arXiv:2608. 10008v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM recommenders for top-$K$ item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.
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. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions.
arXiv:2607. 23647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can summarize heterogeneous user evidence in natural language, but current LLM recommenders often collapse enduring preferences, transient intent, and exposure-induced behavior into one profile.
arXiv:2608. 07762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM benchmarks can build an organization's reputation and attract customers, but only when results are transparent and verifiable.
arXiv:2608. 09093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How a document's arrangement is written down, its notation, is a training variable that no dataset card records.