AI Networking Cookbook: Practical recipes for AI-assisted network automation and development
2 papers indexed here
We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.
Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.
ZenGen, an integrated framework for measuring, internalizing, and grounding social intelligence, and Actio, a harness-controlled inference architecture that routes four typed supports into reasoning demonstrate the effectiveness of typed runtime support.
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.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.