AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
Title resolution pending
4 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
4
Pith papers citing it
citation-role summary
background 3
citation-polarity summary
roles
background 3polarities
background 3representative citing papers
Fine-tuned LLM judges struggle with future-proofing to newer generators but maintain backward-compatibility more easily; DPO training and continual learning improve adaptation while all models degrade on unseen questions.
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
citing papers explorer
-
When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
-
On the Shelf Life of Fine-Tuned LLM-Judges: Future-Proofing, Backward-Compatibility, and Question Generalization
Fine-tuned LLM judges struggle with future-proofing to newer generators but maintain backward-compatibility more easily; DPO training and continual learning improve adaptation while all models degrade on unseen questions.
-
A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.