arXiv (All)
open access
Breaking the Illusion of Review Reliability under Static Evaluation: SCOPE Fuzzing for LLM-based Scientific Reviewers
The rapid growth of submissions and reviewing workload has accelerated the use of large language models (LLMs) in peer review. Prior studies suggest that LLM-based reviewers can penalize content perturbations, such as overclaiming, indicating a certain degree of reliability. Yet these conclusions ar
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
- From Rubrics to Reliable Scores: Evidence-Grounded Text Evaluation with LLM Judges#987553
- How Do LLMs Cite? A Mechanistic Interpretation of Attribution in Retrieval-Augmented Generation#1048329
- Hidden in Plain Sight: The Overlooked Significance of Canonical Elements for Extreme LLM Sparsity#974671
- On The Effectiveness-Fluency Trade-Off In LLM Conditioning: A Systematic Study#999812
- Guiding LLM Peer Reviewers: The Impact of Score Anchors on Review Evidence and Accuracy#822324
Record · ID 1132298
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