arXiv Computation and Language By Francesca von Braun-Bates, Sunreeta Sen, Indraayudh Talukdar, Anirban Lahiri

Data Science Approaches to Evaluating Honours Candidates

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces a modular data‑science pipeline that estimates public sentiment toward individuals using fragmented, unstructured open‑source intelligence. The pipeline combines web search, text extraction, relevance filtering, tokenisation, co‑reference resolution, and sentiment analysis to produce auditable person‑level sentiment distributions. By comparing AFINN, VADER, and the domain‑specific MINOS algorithm, the authors show that MINOS best distinguishes positive, ambiguous, and negative reputational cases, and they apply the method to the UK Honours system to support transparent, reproducible, human‑in‑the‑loop sentiment assessment for high‑stakes decisions.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Jun 24

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.

By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

SAGE (Subjectivity-Aware Generation Estimator): A Linguistic Framework for AI-Generated Review Detection *

The paper introduces SAGE, a lightweight linguistic framework that detects AI-generated peer reviews by exploiting subjectivity at semantic and pragmatic levels. It uses speech act annotations and model-predicted subjectivity scores to train a classifier achieving an AUROC of 0.9566. When combined with the Sem-Detect detector, SAGE boosts the true positive rate at 1% false positive rate on the APRDB benchmark from 0.874 to 0.985, surpassing current state‑of‑the‑art methods.

By Gonzalo Freijedo Aduna (IJN), Charles Yaiche (CRIStAL), Patrick Bas (CRIStAL), Alda Mari (IJN)