arXiv (All)
open access
Judging a Review by its Cover: A Reliability Analysis of LLM-based Peer Review Evaluation Metrics
Peer-review evaluation is increasingly being automated with LLM-as-a-judge metrics, but this creates a measurement risk. A review may receive a high score because it is fluent, organized, and polished, rather than because it provides a strong evaluation of the paper. This risk is especially importan
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation#986680
- PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers#974435
- Who's Keeping Score? Interactive Steering of LLM-Powered Scoring with Attune#612387
- Who's Keeping Score? Interactive Steering of LLM-Powered Scoring with Attune#610910
- Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future#149123
Record · ID 1049008
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive