arXiv:2609.11983v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An OpenReview bug in November 2025 broke anonymity at several conferences and prompted calls for open review, which motivate us to ask what shifting from blind to open would mean for authors. Analyzing over 18,000 reviewed submissions to ICLR 2026, split into de facto open and blind groups by arXiv preprint timing, we find that ratings rise with author reputation under both mechanisms, with a steeper slope under open review that is statistically significant, and that the open-blind difference is concentrated at the borderline ratings. The pattern holds across five reputation proxies (including institution, h-index, and citation count), three author-aggregation rules, and five definitions of the open window. A controlled simulation with five AI models as reviewers, holding the manuscript fixed and varying the author reputation, reproduces the effect. With claude-opus-5 as the reviewer, for example, rating rises by 0.5 points as the author moves from low to high reputation.

arXiv:2604.02368v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.