Vibhhu Sharma

Vibhhu Sharma, Shantanu Gupta, Nil-Jana Akpinar et al.

As recommender systems become widely deployed in different domains, they increasingly influence their users' beliefs and preferences. Auditing recommender systems is crucial as it not only ensures the continuous improvement of recommendation algorithms but also safeguards against potential issues like biases and ethical concerns. In this paper, we view recommender system auditing from a causal lens and provide a general recipe for defining auditing metrics. Under this general causal auditing framework, we categorize existing auditing metrics and identify gaps in them -- notably, the lack of metrics for auditing user agency while accounting for the multi-step dynamics of the recommendation process. We leverage our framework and propose two classes of such metrics:future- and past-reacheability and stability, that measure the ability of a user to influence their own and other users' recommendations, respectively. We provide both a gradient-based and a black-box approach for computing these metrics, allowing the auditor to compute them under different levels of access to the recommender system. In our experiments, we demonstrate the efficacy of methods for computing the proposed metrics and inspect the design of recommender systems through these proposed metrics.

Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean

There are increasing indications that LLMs are not only used for producing scientific papers, but also as part of the peer review process. In this work, we provide the first comprehensive analysis of LLM use across the peer review pipeline, with particular attention to interaction effects: not just whether LLM-assisted papers or LLM-assisted reviews are different in isolation, but whether LLM-assisted reviews evaluate LLM-assisted papers differently. In particular, we analyze over 125,000 paper-review pairs from ICLR, NeurIPS, and ICML. We initially observe what appears to be a systematic interaction effect: LLM-assisted reviews seem especially kind to LLM-assisted papers compared to papers with minimal LLM use. However, controlling for paper quality reveals a different story: LLM-assisted reviews are simply more lenient toward lower quality papers in general, and the over-representation of LLM-assisted papers among weaker submissions creates a spurious interaction effect rather than genuine preferential treatment of LLM-generated content. By augmenting our observational findings with reviews that are fully LLM-generated, we find that fully LLM-generated reviews exhibit severe rating compression that fails to discriminate paper quality, while human reviewers using LLMs substantially reduce this leniency. Finally, examining metareviews, we find that LLM-assisted metareviews are more likely to render accept decisions than human metareviews given equivalent reviewer scores, though fully LLM-generated metareviews tend to be harsher. This suggests that meta-reviewers do not merely outsource the decision-making to the LLM. These findings provide important input for developing policies that govern the use of LLMs during peer review, and they more generally indicate how LLMs interact with existing decision-making processes.