Critical Acclaim Orientation in Large Language Models: Evidence from Film Preference Elicitation

Large language models (LLMs) can readily reproduce conventional expressions, yet their ability to model gradient frequency distributions remains underexplored. We investigate this using linguistic binomials, such as men and women, where both word permutations are grammatically valid but exhibit distinct, cross-linguistic variations in conventionality. We formalize binomial ordering as a distributional alignment problem, and construct a multilingual dataset of 600 binomial pairs across 8 languages. With categorical and distributional metrics, we measure and compare the corpus-derived preferences with model-induced ordering probabilities of 6 open-weight LLMs. While models often behaviorally recover the dominant corpus-preferred order, particularly for strongly conventionalized pairs, they align less well with the exact corpus preference distributions. This suggests that apparent directional order overstates how faithfully LLMs capture the statistical nuances of language use. Sparse probing verifies that the concept of preference strength is partially encoded among middle-to-late layers, and steering along probe-derived directions alters model-induced ordering distributions, demonstrating that the statistical behavioral preference of LLMs can be mechanistically measured and manipulated via internal representations.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers. Yet LLM judges are both noisy and systematically biased: they favor verbose or well-formatted answers and exhibit position effects, so simply aggregating their votes recovers a ranking of presentation, not of true quality. We study the practical goal of identifying the \topk{} items under a fixed comparison budget, and make two contributions. First, we cast judging as Bayesian inference over latent quality with explicit, judge-specific bias covariates (verbosity, position), regularized by a shrinkage prior so that the data decide which biases a given judge actually exhibits. Second, we introduce a \topk-aware active acquisition rule that chooses the next comparison to maximally reduce uncertainty about \topk{} \emph{membership}, rather than about the full ranking. On a controlled benchmark with known ground-truth quality, judged by sixteen real LLMs spanning open and proprietary families (Llama, Qwen, Phi-4, GPT-4o-mini/5.1/5.5, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus), naive aggregation plateaus at a wrong \topk{} on biased judges regardless of budget, while our bias-aware model recovers it; \topk-aware acquisition reaches this ceiling with far fewer comparisons than round-robin or a global-uncertainty (D-optimal) rule. Bias is real but heterogeneous and capability-dependent: cheap and mid-tier judges carry a strong verbosity bias that our model corrects (lifting recall from \sim$$0.5--$0.6$ to $0.84$--$1.0$), whereas the frontier judges we tested show little bias and already rank accurately, so bias-aware modeling changes little there.