analiza aiqbench
SAGE introduces a schema-guided framework that translates grant review rubrics into structured, evidence-linked checks, significantly improving agreement with human experts when used as an assistive tool. By operationalizing complex evaluation methodologies into auditable drafts, this system addresses the need for transparency and rigor in high-stakes funding decisions without replacing human judgment.
SAGE: Schema-Guided LLMs for Grant Review
arXiv:2609.20829v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Grant reviewers must apply detailed criteria to application forms, budgets, and supporting documents while producing assessments that colleagues can inspect. We present SAGE, Schema-Guided Aspect-Based Grant Evaluation, a system that translates a grant rubric into structured checks and links its judgements to evidence from the application package. We evaluate SAGE in two stages on 35 nonprofit grant applications. A post-factum comparison with 105 reviews from the original competition shows fair ordinal agreement (kappa = 0.29). The foundation then conducted a criterion-level re-review after inspecting SAGE, producing 202 assessments. In this assisted round, SAGE reached kappa = 0.58 and outperformed a one-prompt-per-criterion baseline (kappa = 0.33 on the common subset), with higher rank correlation and lower error. A claim-level audit further identifies confirmed, disputed, and unaddressed parts of the structured draft. SAGE operationalizes the review methodology by producing a detailed, evidence-linked, and auditable draft for expert correction.
Abstract:Grant reviewers must apply detailed criteria to application forms, budgets, and supporting documents while producing assessments that colleagues can inspect. We present SAGE, Schema-Guided Aspect-Based Grant Evaluation, a system that translates a grant rubric into structured checks and links its judgements to evidence from the application package. We evaluate SAGE in two stages on 35 nonprofit grant applications. A post-factum comparison with 105 reviews from the original competition shows fair ordinal agreement (kappa = 0.29). The foundation then conducted a criterion-level re-review after inspecting SAGE, producing 202 assessments. In this assisted round, SAGE reached kappa = 0.58 and outperformed a one-prompt-per-criterion baseline (kappa = 0.33 on the common subset), with higher rank correlation and lower error. A claim-level audit further identifies confirmed, disputed, and unaddressed parts of the structured draft. SAGE operationalizes the review methodology by producing a detailed, evidence-linked, and auditable draft for expert correction.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.20829 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.20829v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.20829 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 239 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Declarative Schemas 2.0 with pg-delta
Supabase · 13 oct. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026