MERIT is a two‑stage framework for reviewer assignment that first trains a reviewer assessor using reinforcement learning to match paper‑specific expertise rubrics with reviewers’ prior work, guided by an LLM judge. The assessor’s predictions are then distilled into an embedding‑based retriever for efficient large‑scale assignment. Experiments show the 4B assessor outperforms larger general‑purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the retriever achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on LR‑Bench and the CMU Gold dataset.
By Zixuan Yang, Yibo Zhao, Weicong Liu, Xiang Li
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
By Akash Raj
IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.
By Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut, Mei Tan, Dorottya Demszky
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably assess scientific hypotheses by using a logit-based energy scoring method that leverages the model’s intrinsic confidence. Across 1,323 papers in 12 disciplines, this intrinsic scoring achieved a 33.0% Hit@1 rate, outperforming a prompted listwise ranking approach that scored 16.6%. The best result, a 1‑billion‑parameter model with logit-based energy scoring, reached 53.1% Hit@1, suggesting that confidence‑based evaluation could improve trustworthy AI‑enabled scientific discovery.
By Swati Rajwal, Sanjay Das, Tirthankar Ghosal
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.
arXiv:2606. 26130v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear.
By Francesca Carlon, Brecht Verbeken, Vincent Ginis, Andres Algaba
RPCBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models’ ability to critique recommendation requests by detecting, diagnosing, and handling flawed premises. It includes evidence‑grounded test instances across five recommendation domains and ten types of premise failures, and introduces a fine‑grained evaluation framework covering detection, error localization, handling strategy, and evidence faithfulness. Experiments with 11 LLMs reveal that proactive detection is the main bottleneck, with models struggling most on underspecified‑premise errors and showing that optimal critique quality occurs at intermediate reasoning lengths.
By Zhongru Chen, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.
By Kathrin Wardatzky, Oana Inel, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
The paper presents a method for fine‑tuning a large language model (LLM) recommender to generate personalized, non‑harmful explanations for its recommendations. By training two LLM‑judge reward models and using constrained GRPO, the authors achieve a significant increase in the PASS rate for all three criteria, from 0.649 to 0.956 on their own judges and from 0.677 to 0.931 on an independent judge. The fine‑tuned model maintains its original recommendation performance, demonstrating that LLM‑based recommenders can be adapted to complex tasks without loss of effectiveness.
By Jiashu He, Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, David Fagnan
Large language models are increasingly used as automated reviewers in scientific evaluation, creating a recursive feedback loop where later reviewers learn from earlier model-generated judgments. A study using Llama 3.1 8B fine‑tuned on ICLR reviews shows that incorporating synthetic reviews compresses rating distributions and reduces semantic diversity, a phenomenon termed scientific‑judgment collapse. To counter this, the authors introduce TrustReviewer, an open‑source LLM system that curates training data and applies paired activation steering at test time to preserve judgment diversity and improve recommendation alignment.
By Sy-Tuyen Ho, Minghui Liu, Furong Huang