Synthetic Reader Panels: Tournament-Based Ideation with LLM Personas for Autonomous Publishing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14433v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 03:44:54 GMT
• Title: Synthetic Reader Panels: Tournament-Based Ideation with LLM Personas for Autonomous Publishing
• Abstract summary: We present a system for autonomous book ideation that replaces human focus groups with synthetic reader panels.<n>Each persona is defined by demographic attributes (age group, gender, income, education, reading level), behavioral patterns (books per year, genre preferences, discovery methods, price sensitivity), and consistency parameters.<n>Book concepts compete in single-elimination, double-elimination, round-robin, or Swiss-system tournaments, judged against weighted criteria including market appeal, originality, and execution potential.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We present a system for autonomous book ideation that replaces human focus groups with synthetic reader panels -- diverse collections of LLM-instantiated reader personas that evaluate book concepts through structured tournament competitions. Each persona is defined by demographic attributes (age group, gender, income, education, reading level), behavioral patterns (books per year, genre preferences, discovery methods, price sensitivity), and consistency parameters. Panels are composed per imprint to reflect target demographics, with diversity constraints ensuring representation across age, reading level, and genre affinity. Book concepts compete in single-elimination, double-elimination, round-robin, or Swiss-system tournaments, judged against weighted criteria including market appeal, originality, and execution potential. To reject low-quality LLM evaluations, we implement five automated anti-slop checks (repetitive phrasing, generic framing, circular reasoning, score clustering, audience mismatch). We report results from deployment within a multi-imprint publishing operation managing 6 active imprints and 609 titles in distribution. Three case studies -- a 270-evaluator panel for a children's literacy novel, and two 5-person expert panels for a military memoir and a naval strategy monograph -- demonstrate that synthetic panels produce actionable demographic segmentation, identify structural content issues invisible to homogeneous reviewers, and enable tournament filtering that eliminates low-quality concepts while enriching high-quality survivors from 15% to 62% of the evaluated pool.

Related papers

• Fair Learning for Bias Mitigation and Quality Optimization in Paper Recommendation [1.9029881798999504]
  We present a MultiLayer Perceptron (MLP)-based model that addresses demographic disparities in post-review paper acceptance decisions.<n>Our methodology penalizes demographic disparities while preserving quality throughal criteria (e.g., race, country) and a customized fairness loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T13:48:29Z)
• Beyond Survival: Evaluating LLMs in Social Deduction Games with Human-Aligned Strategies [54.08697738311866]
  Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy.<n>We curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants.<n>We propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:33:30Z)
• Simulating Identity, Propagating Bias: Abstraction and Stereotypes in LLM-Generated Text [8.988787218035414]
  We investigate whether persona-prompting leads to different levels of linguistic abstraction when generating short texts linking socio-demographic categories with stereotypical or non-stereotypical attributes.<n>Our results confirm criticisms about the ecology of personas as representative of socio-demographic groups and raise concerns about the risk of propagating stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T10:49:21Z)
• Let's Use ChatGPT To Write Our Paper! Benchmarking LLMs To Write the Introduction of a Research Paper [64.50822834679101]
  SciIG is a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works.<n>We assess five state-of-the-art models, including open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems.<n>Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T21:11:11Z)
• Investigating Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models using Confidence Disparities in Coreference Resolution [5.061421107401101]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance, leading to their widespread adoption as decision-support tools in resource-constrained contexts like hiring and admissions.<n>There is, however, scientific consensus that AI systems can reflect and exacerbate societal biases, raising concerns about identity-based harm when used in critical social contexts.<n>In this work, we extend single-axis fairness evaluations to examine intersectional bias, recognizing that when multiple axes of discrimination intersect, they create distinct patterns of disadvantage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T22:24:40Z)
• Post-hoc Study of Climate Microtargeting on Social Media Ads with LLMs: Thematic Insights and Fairness Evaluation [24.599293872173362]
  This study presents a post-hoc analysis of microtargeting practices within climate campaigns.<n>We evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to accurately predict the intended demographic targets.<n>We conduct a comprehensive fairness analysis to uncover biases in model predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T18:07:56Z)
• A Group Fairness Lens for Large Language Models [34.0579082699443]
  Large language models can perpetuate biases and unfairness when deployed in social media contexts. We propose evaluating LLM biases from a group fairness lens using a novel hierarchical schema characterizing diverse social groups. We pioneer a novel chain-of-thought method GF-Think to mitigate biases of LLMs from a group fairness perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T13:25:15Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Overview of the TREC 2020 Fair Ranking Track [64.16623297717642]
  This paper provides an overview of the NIST TREC 2020 Fair Ranking track. The central goal of the Fair Ranking track is to provide fair exposure to different groups of authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T10:22:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.