# Articulate Intuition or Genuine Analysis? Benchmarking Epistemic Reliability in LLM-as-a-Judge Peer Reviews

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10511 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.10511/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16950/) (2024)
- [Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04041/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.