arXiv:2602. 08873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation.
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 AI.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.