How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?

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. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.

When Calibration Rankings Reverse: Accuracy-Controlled Evaluation for Fair Comparison of LLMs

Calibration evaluates whether a model confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy. Existing studies often compare the calibration of different large language models using global calibration metrics such as Expected Calibration Error and Brier Score. We begin by showing, both theoretically and empirically, that such comparisons are confounded by differences in model accuracy. For fairer cross-model comparison, we then propose ACE, an accuracy-controlled evaluation framework with three complementary views: Instance-Aligned, Distribution-Aligned, and Candidate-Aligned calibration. Across multiple benchmarks, model families, and confidence elicitation methods, we use ACE to study two practically important comparison axes, small versus large models and thinking versus non-thinking models. We find that many previously reported calibration advantages under raw global metrics weaken substantially after accuracy control. We also find that ranking reversal is frequent: models favored by raw metrics often cease to be favored once accuracy is controlled. Our results show that raw global calibration metrics are not robust for cross-model comparison, and that fair calibration comparison requires accuracy-aware evaluation.

Research Entity Extraction and Topic Detection from UKRI Grant Proposals

This paper presents preliminary findings from a UKRI-funded Metascience project comparing three LLM-based approaches, GPT-4o, Mistral, and a bespoke algorithm, DSIT-Taxonomies, for extracting and classifying research entities from funding proposals. Our project "Tracking Stars and Unicorns" aims to identify early signals of emerging research areas to inform public investment. Our methodology employed a three-stage pipeline, leveraging Mistral for primary entity extraction and mapping against the OpenAlex Topics taxonomy. We evaluated our approach across 42 proposals' abstracts from different areas and observed that Mistral and GPT-4o produce comparable, high-quality entity sets with significant semantic overlap, outperforming the fragmented DSIT-Taxonomies approach. Crucially, the Mistral-based approach achieved superior topic classification accuracy (90.5%) compared to the full DSIT-Taxonomies pipeline (71.4%). We conclude that Mistral offers a high-performance, operationally efficient, and secure solution for large-scale analysis of sensitive grant data.

When Do LLMs Replace Fine-Tuned NLU? A Decision Framework for Intent Detection in Production Conversational Systems

A common claim is that zero-shot large language models (LLMs) can replace fine-tuned NLU classifiers for intent detection. We test this claim head-to-head and find that the honest answer is: it depends on the intent space. On full ATIS and CLINC150 we compare a fine-tuned RoBERTa, a TF-IDF+logistic-regression baseline, sentence-embedding kNN, and Claude Haiku zero-shot, reporting bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and paired significance tests. When abundant in-domain labels exist, fine-tuned RoBERTa is as good or better and three orders of magnitude cheaper and faster: on ATIS it beats Claude zero-shot by 11.8 points (95.9 vs. 84.1, p<0.001). On the broad 150-intent CLINC150 schema the two are statistically tied (89.1 vs. 88.5, p=0.24): the LLM matches a fully supervised model with no training data. The LLM's advantages appear in three production-relevant regimes: out-of-scope detection (OOS recall 85.6 vs. 58.1 for RoBERTa); robustness to realistic ASR noise via a controlled text-to-speech to noise to Whisper pipeline (92.5 vs. 80.0 at 0 dB); and dynamic per-deployment schemas, where a classifier trained on one app's intents scores 0% on a new app's intents while the schema-prompted LLM serves both at ~94% with zero retraining. We distill these findings into a decision framework for practitioners.

Comparing LLM and Fine-Tuned Model Performance on NVDRS Circumstance Extraction with Varying Prompt Complexity

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and understanding the circumstances that precede it requires extracting structured information from death investigation narratives. Many of these circumstances require semantic inference beyond simple keyword matching. We develop a ``Complexity Score'' algorithm that analyzes coding manual structure to predict when detailed prompts with full coding guidelines improve over name-only prompts. We then construct a hybrid approach that selects prompt strategy per circumstance. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) against fine-tuned RoBERTa on 25 inferentially complex circumstances from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). We found that LLMs substantially outperform on low-prevalence circumstances where training data is insufficient. We further demonstrate that our framework generalizes across frontier LLMs, with GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama-3 70B showing consistent performance patterns. These findings support a hybrid architecture where LLMs handle rare, inferentially complex circumstances while fine-tuned models handle common ones.

Entropy of Ukrainian

In natural language processing, the entropy of a language is a measure of its unpredictability and complexity. The first study on this subject was conducted by Claude Shannon in 1951. By having participants predict the next character in a sentence, he was able to approximate the entropy of the English language. Several follow-up studies by other authors have since been conducted for English, and one for Hebrew. However, to date, Shannon's experiment has never been conducted for Ukrainian. In this paper, we perform this experiment for Ukrainian by recruiting 184 volunteers using social media channels. We rely on techniques used for English to approximate the entropy value of Ukrainian. The final result is an upper bound of $H_{upper}\approx1.201$ bits per character. We compare this to the performance of current Large Language Models. The methods and code used are also documented and published, along with a discussion of the main challenges encountered.