Sarina Xi

Ivan Stelmakh, John Wieting, Sarina Xi et al. · cmu

Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper -- and many algorithms have been proposed to compute these scores. However, these algorithms have not been subjected to a principled comparison, making it difficult for stakeholders to choose the algorithm in an evidence-based manner. The key challenge in comparing existing algorithms and developing better algorithms is the lack of publicly available gold-standard data. We address this challenge by collecting a novel dataset of similarity scores that we release to the research community. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers who evaluated their expertise in reviewing papers they have read previously. Using our dataset, we compare several widely used similarity algorithms and offer key insights. First, all algorithms exhibit significant error, with misranking rates between 12%-30% in easier cases and 36%-43% in harder ones. Second, most specialized algorithms are designed to work with titles and abstracts of papers, and in this regime the SPECTER2 algorithm performs best. Interestingly, classical TF-IDF matches SPECTER2 in accuracy when given access to full submission texts. In contrast, off-the-shelf LLMs lag behind specialized approaches.

Sarina Xi, Vishisht Rao, Justin Payan et al.

The identification and localization of errors is a core task in peer review, yet the exponential growth of scientific output has made it increasingly difficult for human reviewers to reliably detect errors given the limited pool of experts. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked interest in their potential to support such evaluation tasks, from academic peer review to automated scientific assessment. However, despite the growing use of LLMs in review systems, their capabilities to pinpoint errors remain underexplored. In this work, we introduce Fault Localization Across Writing in Science (FLAWS), an automated benchmark consisting of 713 paper-error pairs designed to evaluate how effectively LLMs detect errors that undermine key claims in research papers. We construct the benchmark by systematically inserting claim-invalidating errors into peer-reviewed papers using LLMs, paired with an automated evaluation metric that measures whether models can identify and localize these errors. Developing such a benchmark presents unique challenges that we overcome: ensuring that the inserted errors are well-defined, challenging, and relevant to the content of the paper, avoiding artifacts that would make identification trivial, and designing a scalable, automated evaluation metric. On the resulting benchmark, we evaluate five frontier LLMs: Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek Reasoner v3.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 5, and Grok 4. Among these, GPT 5 is the top-performing model, achieving 39.1% identification accuracy when k=10, where k is the number of top-ranked error text candidates generated by the LLM.

Sarina Xi, Orelia Pi, Miaomiao Zhang et al.

There is growing interest in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to automate and support complex decision-making tasks. However, it remains unclear how algorithms compare to human judgment in contexts requiring semantic understanding and domain expertise. We examine this in the context of the judge assignment problem, matching submissions to suitably qualified judges. Specifically, we tackled this problem at the Harvard President's Innovation Challenge, the university's premier venture competition awarding over \$500,000 to student and alumni startups. This represents a real-world environment where high-quality judge assignment is essential. We developed an AI-based judge-assignment algorithm, Hybrid Lexical-Semantic Similarity Ensemble (HLSE), and deployed it at the competition. We then evaluated its performance against human expert assignments using blinded match-quality scores from judges on $309$ judge-venture pairs. Using a Mann-Whitney U statistic based test, we found no statistically significant difference in assignment quality between the two approaches ($AUC=0.48, p=0.40$); on average, algorithmic matches are rated $3.90$ and manual matches $3.94$ on a 5-point scale, where 5 indicates an excellent match. Furthermore, manual assignments that previously required a full week could be automated in several hours by the algorithm during deployment. These results demonstrate that HLSE achieves human-expert-level matching quality while offering greater scalability and efficiency, underscoring the potential of AI-driven solutions to support and enhance human decision-making for judge assignment in high-stakes settings.