arXiv Computation and Language By Timo van der Kuil (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Bruno Messina Coimbra (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Mirjam van Zuiden (Clinical Psychology Utrecht University), Robert A. Bagheri (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Rens van de Schoot (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Klaas Dieleman (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Berend Greijn (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Stefan Houkes (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Sebastiaan Rodenhuis (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Elizabeth M. Grandfield (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University)

Using Human-LLM Disagreement to Improve Checklist-Based Quality Appraisal

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
1d ago

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
arXiv AI
Aug 5

How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?

arXiv:2608. 03659v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting.

By Abraham Camelo-Guerrero, Jairo Diaz-Rodriguez