Daily Papers

Code review is a critical software engineering practice where developers review code changes before integration to ensure code quality, detect defects, and improve maintainability. In recent years, AI agents that can understand code context, plan review actions, and interact with development environments have been increasingly integrated into the code review process. However, there is limited empirical evidence to compare the effectiveness of AI agents and human reviewers in collaborative workflows. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of 278,790 code review conversations across 300 open-source GitHub projects. In our study, we aim to compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents. We investigate human-AI collaboration patterns in review conversations to understand how interaction shapes review outcomes. Moreover, we analyze the adoption of code suggestions provided by human reviewers and AI agents into the codebase and how adopted suggestions change code quality. We find that human reviewers provide additional feedback than AI agents, including understanding, testing, and knowledge transfer. Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code. Moreover, code suggestions made by AI agents are adopted into the codebase at a significantly lower rate than suggestions proposed by human reviewers. Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers. When adopted, suggestions provided by AI agents produce significantly larger increases in code complexity and code size than suggestions provided by human reviewers. Our findings suggest that while AI agents can scale defect screening, human oversight remains critical for ensuring suggestion quality and providing contextual feedback that AI agents lack.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.

We study the overall process of automatic formalization of GDPR provisions using large language models, within a human-in-the-loop verification framework. Rather than aiming for full autonomy, we adopt a role-specialized workflow in which LLM-based AI components, operating in a multi-agent setting with iterative feedback, generate legal scenarios, formal rules, and atomic facts. This is coupled with independent verification modules which include human reviewers' assessment of representational, logical, and legal correctness. Using this approach, we construct a high-quality dataset to be used for GDPR auto-formalization, and analyze both successful and problematic cases. Our results show that structured verification and targeted human oversight are essential for reliable legal formalization, especially in the presence of legal nuance and context-sensitive reasoning.

Much recent research has uncovered and discussed serious concerns of bias in facial analysis technologies, finding performance disparities between groups of people based on perceived gender, skin type, lighting condition, etc. These audits are immensely important and successful at measuring algorithmic bias but have two major challenges: the audits (1) use facial recognition datasets which lack quality metadata, like LFW and CelebA, and (2) do not compare their observed algorithmic bias to the biases of their human alternatives. In this paper, we release improvements to the LFW and CelebA datasets which will enable future researchers to obtain measurements of algorithmic bias that are not tainted by major flaws in the dataset (e.g. identical images appearing in both the gallery and test set). We also use these new data to develop a series of challenging facial identification and verification questions that we administered to various algorithms and a large, balanced sample of human reviewers. We find that both computer models and human survey participants perform significantly better at the verification task, generally obtain lower accuracy rates on dark-skinned or female subjects for both tasks, and obtain higher accuracy rates when their demographics match that of the question. Computer models are observed to achieve a higher level of accuracy than the survey participants on both tasks and exhibit bias to similar degrees as the human survey participants.

The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, especially compared to human reviewers at catching scientific gaps, remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce PRISM (Peer Review Intelligence via Structured Multi-dimensional assessment), a benchmarking framework that evaluates review quality across four dimensions: Depth of Analysis, Novelty Assessment,Flaw Identification & Major Issues Prioritization, and Multi-dimensional Constructiveness. Unlike most existing evaluations based on surface-level metrics like ROUGE and BLEU, or unconstrained LLM-as-a-judge prompting that conflates fluency with rigor, PRISM grounds each dimension in argument mining, retrieval-augmented verification, and consensus-based scoring. We apply PRISM to benchmark five leading automated reviewer systems and human reviewers on a stratified corpus of reviews from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. The results reveal that LLMs can match or beat human reviewers on individual dimensions: comparable depth of analysis, stronger novelty verification, and highly accurate critique prioritization. However, no single system consistently matches the balanced performance of the human baseline across all dimensions at once. Each exhibits a distinct specialization profile with characteristic blind spots -- failure modes that aggregate metrics miss entirely. The implication is that LLM reviewers are best understood as targeted supplements to human review, effective within specific dimensions, but unreliable as standalone replacements. Our demo and key results can be found at https://khanhthanhdev.github.io/prism-page/.

Code review helps maintain software quality before code integration, but it also imposes a substantial workload on human reviewers. As generative artificial intelligence becomes part of software development, code review is shifting from a primarily human review process toward AI-supported review processes in which large language model (LLM) reviewers and AI agent reviewers participate alongside human reviewers. However, we still lack empirical evidence on how this transition affects review efficiency and review quality. In this paper, we study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras: human-centric review, LLM-assisted review, and agentic code review. We identify three AI reviewer adoption practices: Gradual AI Adoption, Rapid LLM Adoption, and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. We further model pull request review discussions as reviewer interaction sequences to characterize how human, LLM, and AI agent reviewers collaborate during the review process. Our results show that agent-involved collaboration patterns, especially reviews initiated by AI agents or involving multiple AI agents, are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. However, these efficiency gains do not translate into better review quality. We also find that review activity and pull request type remain important across eras, while human-AI collaboration patterns become the strongest explanatory factor for review efficiency once LLM and AI agent reviewers participate. These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, both as automated reviewers and as assistants to human reviewers. As model-generated reviews enter public data and future training corpora, AI peer review can become recursive: later reviewers learn from judgments produced by earlier models. We study one step of this feedback loop in a controlled setting. Starting from Llama 3.1 8B, we first fine-tune a reviewer on official ICLR reviews from 2018--2023 and then train four successor models on ICLR 2024 data with systematically varied mixtures of official and model-generated reviews. Our study shows that introducing synthetic reviews compresses rating distributions and reduces both same-paper and corpus-level semantic diversity. We call this pattern scientific-judgment collapse. To mitigate this failure mode, we introduce TrustReviewer, an open-source LLM-based system for generating peer reviews of AI and machine learning papers. TrustReviewer intervenes at two complementary stages. For training-time prevention, we train the core reviewer in a single stage on a curated corpus designed to reduce low-quality and semantically degenerate supervision. For test-time correction, paired activation steering aims to further mitigate residual tendencies toward collapsed judgments without further training or additional expert annotation. Together, these results characterize a concrete risk of recursive reviewer training and provide practical interventions for preserving judgment diversity and improving recommendation alignment in AI-assisted scientific evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.

This paper calls on the research community not only to investigate how human biases are inherited by large language models (LLMs) but also to explore how these biases in LLMs can be leveraged to make society's "unwritten code" - such as implicit stereotypes and heuristics - visible and accessible for critique. We introduce a conceptual framework through a case study in science: uncovering hidden rules in peer review - the factors that reviewers care about but rarely state explicitly due to normative scientific expectations. The idea of the framework is to push LLMs to speak out their heuristics through generating self-consistent hypotheses - why one paper appeared stronger in reviewer scoring - among paired papers submitted to 45 computer science conferences, while iteratively searching deeper hypotheses from remaining pairs where existing hypotheses cannot explain. We observed that LLMs' normative priors about the internal characteristics of good science extracted from their self-talk, e.g. theoretical rigor, were systematically updated toward posteriors that emphasize storytelling about external connections, such as how the work is positioned and connected within and across literatures. This shift reveals the primacy of scientific myths about intrinsic properties driving scientific excellence rather than extrinsic contextualization and storytelling that influence conceptions of relevance and significance. Human reviewers tend to explicitly reward aspects that moderately align with LLMs' normative priors (correlation = 0.49) but avoid articulating contextualization and storytelling posteriors in their review comments (correlation = -0.14), despite giving implicit reward to them with positive scores. We discuss the broad applicability of the framework, leveraging LLMs as diagnostic tools to surface the tacit codes underlying human society, enabling more precisely targeted responsible AI.

Most evaluations of large language models focus on standard tasks such as factual question answering or short summarization. This research expands that scope in two directions: first, by comparing two retrieval strategies, Graph RAG, structured knowledge-graph based, and Advanced RAG, hybrid keyword-semantic search, for QA; and second, by evaluating whether LLMs can generate high quality non-traditional academic outputs, specifically slide decks and podcast scripts. We implemented a prototype combining Meta's LLaMA 3 70B open weight and OpenAI's GPT 4o mini API based. QA performance was evaluated using both human ratings across eleven quality dimensions and large language model judges for scalable cross validation. GPT 4o mini with Advanced RAG produced the most accurate responses. Graph RAG offered limited improvements and led to more hallucinations, partly due to its structural complexity and manual setup. Slide and podcast generation was tested with document grounded retrieval. GPT 4o mini again performed best, though LLaMA 3 showed promise in narrative coherence. Human reviewers were crucial for detecting layout and stylistic flaws, highlighting the need for combined human LLM evaluation in assessing emerging academic outputs.

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

Machine learning methods have proven useful in transcribing historical data. However, results from even highly accurate methods require manual verification and correction. Such manual review can be time-consuming and expensive, therefore the objective of this paper was to make it more efficient. Previously, we used machine learning to transcribe 2.3 million handwritten occupation codes from the Norwegian 1950 census with high accuracy (97%). We manually reviewed the 90,000 (3%) codes with the lowest model confidence. We allocated those 90,000 codes to human reviewers, who used our annotation tool to review the codes. To assess reviewer agreement, some codes were assigned to multiple reviewers. We then analyzed the review results to understand the relationship between accuracy improvements and effort. Additionally, we interviewed the reviewers to improve the workflow. The reviewers corrected 62.8% of the labels and agreed with the model label in 31.9% of cases. About 0.2% of the images could not be assigned a label, while for 5.1% the reviewers were uncertain, or they assigned an invalid label. 9,000 images were independently reviewed by multiple reviewers, resulting in an agreement of 86.43% and disagreement of 8.96%. We learned that our automatic transcription is biased towards the most frequent codes, with a higher degree of misclassification for the lowest frequency codes. Our interview findings show that the reviewers did internal quality control and found our custom tool well-suited. So, only one reviewer is needed, but they should report uncertainty.

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

The growing number of submitted papers has motivated the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support and augment the peer review process, particularly in terms of improving its speed and scalability. Yet, it remains unknown whether LLMs engage with scientific manuscripts in the same manner as human reviewers, or whether they merely produce review-looking text. To address this, we introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a novel framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement. To complement the PRAIB framework, we conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers. Spanning the 2021--2025 period, these machine-generated reviews are compared against original human feedback across diverse prompting strategies to identify systematic behavioral divergences. Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers: LLM ratings are less variable, positively biased, and overconfident, and their cross-reference patterns are model-dependent and distinct from human norms. Furthermore, when evaluated through PRAIB, we observe that LLMs tend to generate longer, more complex reviews, yet frequently overlook the atomic weaknesses noted by human reviewers. By characterizing where and how LLMs reviewing behavior departs from human norms, PRAIB provides the community with a diagnostic tool for identifying which aspects of the review process LLMs can reliably support today and which require further development before deployment.

Clinical evidence, derived from rigorous research and data analysis, provides healthcare professionals with reliable scientific foundations for informed decision-making. Integrating clinical evidence into real-time practice is challenging due to the enormous workload, complex professional processes, and time constraints. This highlights the need for tools that automate evidence synthesis to support more efficient and accurate decision making in clinical settings. This study introduces Quicker, an evidence-based clinical decision support system powered by large language models (LLMs), designed to automate evidence synthesis and generate clinical recommendations modeled after standard clinical guideline development processes. Quicker implements a fully automated chain that covers all phases, from questions to clinical recommendations, and further enables customized decision-making through integrated tools and interactive user interfaces. To evaluate Quicker's capabilities, we developed the Q2CRBench-3 benchmark dataset, based on clinical guideline development records for three different diseases. Experimental results highlighted Quicker's strong performance, with fine-grained question decomposition tailored to user preferences, retrieval sensitivities comparable to human experts, and literature screening performance approaching comprehensive inclusion of relevant studies. In addition, Quicker-assisted evidence assessment effectively supported human reviewers, while Quicker's recommendations were more comprehensive and logically coherent than those of clinicians. In system-level testing, collaboration between a single reviewer and Quicker reduced the time required for recommendation development to 20-40 minutes. In general, our findings affirm the potential of Quicker to help physicians make quicker and more reliable evidence-based clinical decisions.

We stress test monitoring systems for detecting covert misbehavior in autonomous LLM agents (e.g., secretly sharing private information). To this end, we systematize a monitor red teaming (MRT) workflow that incorporates: (1) varying levels of agent and monitor situational awareness; (2) distinct adversarial strategies to evade the monitor, such as prompt injection; and (3) two datasets and environments -- SHADE-Arena for tool-calling agents and our new CUA-SHADE-Arena, which extends TheAgentCompany, for computer-use agents. We run MRT on existing LLM monitor scaffoldings, which orchestrate LLMs and parse agent trajectories, alongside a new hybrid hierarchical-sequential scaffolding proposed in this work. Our empirical results yield three key findings. First, agent awareness dominates monitor awareness: an agent's knowledge that it is being monitored substantially degrades the monitor's reliability. On the contrary, providing the monitor with more information about the agent is less helpful than expected. Second, monitor scaffolding matters more than monitor awareness: the hybrid scaffolding consistently outperforms baseline monitor scaffolding, and can enable weaker models to reliably monitor stronger agents -- a weak-to-strong scaling effect. Third, in a human-in-the-loop setting where humans discuss with the LLM monitor to get an updated judgment for the agent's behavior, targeted human oversight is most effective; escalating only pre-flagged cases to human reviewers improved the TPR by approximately 15% at FPR = 0.01. Our work establishes a standard workflow for MRT, highlighting the lack of adversarial robustness for LLMs and humans when monitoring and detecting agent misbehavior. We release code, data, and logs to spur further research.

Reproducibility crises across sciences highlight the limitations of the paper-centric review system in assessing the rigor and reproducibility of research. AI agents that autonomously design and generate large volumes of research outputs exacerbate these challenges. In this work, we address the growing challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators. We propose the first execution-grounded evaluation framework that verifies research beyond narrative review by examining code and data alongside the paper. We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent, an automated evaluation framework that assesses the coherence of the experimental process, the reproducibility of results, and the generalizability of findings. We show that our framework achieves above 80% agreement with human judges, identifies substantial methodological problems, and surfaces 51 additional issues that human reviewers miss. Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.

Autoresearch agents are reshaping the research ecosystem, but they can also let flawed claims enter the literature at scale. Human advisors catch such issues in drafts through careful, traceable feedback, yet advisor-style assessment requires extensive manual effort and does not scale. To shift automated paper assessment from a judge to a diagnostician, we introduce PaperDoctor, an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations. First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through three layers: L1 surface screening, L2 typed verifiers that route each claim to the appropriate evidence, and L3 reproducers that rerun experiments by priority. Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion, making critiques auditable and actionable. Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget, surfacing reproducibility gaps and quantitative limitations that are invisible from the manuscript alone. We evaluate PaperDoctor on 30 in-progress papers, yielding 70.6% agreement and all positive holistic scores, and on 40 manuscripts across machine learning, natural science, and social science, covering human- and AI-authored papers with code. Overall, PaperDoctor produces more auditable feedback than human and other agentic reviewers, pairs critiques with concrete suggestions by design, and complements dimensions often overlooked by human reviewers. We also develop an interactive interface that lets authors browse findings grounded in their paper. PaperDoctor reframes automated paper assessment as diagnosis rather than verdict, taking a concrete step toward AI advisors for more rigorous AI-assisted scientific discovery.

Recent developments in LLMs offer new opportunities for assisting authors in improving their work. In this paper, we envision a use case where authors can receive LLM-generated reviews that uncover weak points in the current draft. While initial methods for automated review generation already exist, these methods tend to produce reviews that lack detail, and they do not cover the range of opinions that human reviewers produce. To address this shortcoming, we propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2. Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address. We show that this leads to more detailed reviews that better cover the range of aspects that human reviewers identify in the draft. As part of the research, we generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts, which we make available as a resource for future research.

The automation of scientific discovery has been a long-standing goal within the research community, driven by the potential to accelerate knowledge creation. While significant progress has been made using commercial large language models (LLMs) as research assistants or idea generators, the possibility of automating the entire research process with open-source LLMs remains largely unexplored. This paper explores the feasibility of using open-source post-trained LLMs as autonomous agents capable of performing the full cycle of automated research and review, from literature review and manuscript preparation to peer review and paper revision. Our iterative preference training framework consists of CycleResearcher, which conducts research tasks, and CycleReviewer, which simulates the peer review process, providing iterative feedback via reinforcement learning. To train these models, we develop two new datasets, Review-5k and Research-14k, reflecting real-world machine learning research and peer review dynamics. Our results demonstrate that CycleReviewer achieves a 26.89\% improvement in mean absolute error (MAE) over individual human reviewers in predicting paper scores, indicating that LLMs can surpass expert-level performance in research evaluation. In research, the papers generated by the CycleResearcher model achieved a score of 5.36 in simulated peer reviews, surpassing the preprint level of 5.24 from human experts and approaching the accepted paper level of 5.69. This work represents a significant step toward fully automated scientific inquiry, providing ethical safeguards and advancing AI-driven research capabilities. The code, dataset and model weight are released at http://github/minjun-zhu/Researcher.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in interpreting lengthy, complex legal and policy language. However, their reliability can be undermined by hallucinations and inconsistencies, particularly when analyzing subjective and nuanced documents. These challenges are especially critical in medical coverage policy review, where human experts must be able to rely on accurate information. In this paper, we present an approach designed to support human reviewers by making policy interpretation more efficient and interpretable. We introduce a methodology that pairs a coverage-aware retriever with symbolic rule-based reasoning to surface relevant policy language, organize it into explicit facts and rules, and generate auditable rationales. This hybrid system minimizes the number of LLM inferences required which reduces overall model cost. Notably, our approach achieves a 44% reduction in inference cost alongside a 4.5% improvement in F1 score, demonstrating both efficiency and effectiveness.

Pull request (PR) descriptions generated by AI coding agents are the primary channel for communicating code changes to human reviewers. However, the alignment between these messages and the actual changes remains unexplored, raising concerns about the trustworthiness of AI agents. To fill this gap, we analyzed 23,247 agentic PRs across five agents using PR message-code inconsistency (PR-MCI). We contributed 974 manually annotated PRs, found 406 PRs (1.7%) exhibited high PR-MCI, and identified eight PR-MCI types, revealing that descriptions claiming unimplemented changes was the most common issue (45.4%). Statistical tests confirmed that high-MCI PRs had 51.7% lower acceptance rates (28.3% vs. 80.0%) and took 3.5x longer to merge (55.8 vs. 16.0 hours). Our findings suggest that unreliable PR descriptions undermine trust in AI agents, highlighting the need for PR-MCI verification mechanisms and improved PR generation to enable trustworthy human-AI collaboration.

Autonomous research agents can generate experiments faster than researchers can validate them. Researchers have responded by scaling the proposer and ranking more samples with a learned judge or human reviewers. We argue that this *generate-and-rank* paradigm misses the problem of sparse feedback. Within a declared research problem, an agent follows the control loop of a greybox fuzzer: it proposes a candidate, executes it, observes feedback, and chooses what to try next. A fuzzer rarely finds a bug, but coverage makes partial progress observable on every execution. Fuzzers then use that signal to mutate inputs and allocate effort, rather than only to rank completed runs. Auto-research needs the same two capabilities. First, each experiment should expose a cheap, dense signal of epistemic progress before final scientific validation is available. Second, that signal should determine the next intervention so that the agent searches rather than repeatedly samples. Because the optimized progress signal is guidance rather than a verdict, final validation must still decide what counts as a discovery using evidence protected from adaptive reuse. We propose controlled tests of whether candidate signals predict validated progress, whether feedback-directed search yields more validated discoveries per unit cost than repeated sampling, and whether protected validation reduces false discoveries. Feedback architecture, not only generation, is a central bottleneck in auto-research.

This paper presents a groundbreaking comparison between Large Language Models and traditional legal contract reviewers, Junior Lawyers and Legal Process Outsourcers. We dissect whether LLMs can outperform humans in accuracy, speed, and cost efficiency during contract review. Our empirical analysis benchmarks LLMs against a ground truth set by Senior Lawyers, uncovering that advanced models match or exceed human accuracy in determining legal issues. In speed, LLMs complete reviews in mere seconds, eclipsing the hours required by their human counterparts. Cost wise, LLMs operate at a fraction of the price, offering a staggering 99.97 percent reduction in cost over traditional methods. These results are not just statistics, they signal a seismic shift in legal practice. LLMs stand poised to disrupt the legal industry, enhancing accessibility and efficiency of legal services. Our research asserts that the era of LLM dominance in legal contract review is upon us, challenging the status quo and calling for a reimagined future of legal workflows.

How are AI assistants being used in the real world? While model providers in theory have a window into this impact via their users' data, both privacy concerns and practical challenges have made analyzing this data difficult. To address these issues, we present Clio (Claude insights and observations), a privacy-preserving platform that uses AI assistants themselves to analyze and surface aggregated usage patterns across millions of conversations, without the need for human reviewers to read raw conversations. We validate this can be done with a high degree of accuracy and privacy by conducting extensive evaluations. We demonstrate Clio's usefulness in two broad ways. First, we share insights about how models are being used in the real world from one million Claude.ai Free and Pro conversations, ranging from providing advice on hairstyles to providing guidance on Git operations and concepts. We also identify the most common high-level use cases on Claude.ai (coding, writing, and research tasks) as well as patterns that differ across languages (e.g., conversations in Japanese discuss elder care and aging populations at higher-than-typical rates). Second, we use Clio to make our systems safer by identifying coordinated attempts to abuse our systems, monitoring for unknown unknowns during critical periods like launches of new capabilities or major world events, and improving our existing monitoring systems. We also discuss the limitations of our approach, as well as risks and ethical concerns. By enabling analysis of real-world AI usage, Clio provides a scalable platform for empirically grounded AI safety and governance.

The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in producing structured and coherent feedback, their capacity for critical reasoning, contextual grounding, and quality sensitivity remains limited. To systematically evaluate these aspects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics to assess LLM-generated reviews against human-written counterparts. We construct a large-scale benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five LLMs. Our findings show that LLMs perform well in descriptive and affirmational content, capturing the main contributions and methodologies of the original work, with GPT-4o highlighted as an illustrative example, generating 15.74% more entities than human reviewers in the strengths section of good papers in ICLR 2025. However, they consistently underperform in identifying weaknesses, raising substantive questions, and adjusting feedback based on paper quality. GPT-4o produces 59.42% fewer entities than real reviewers in the weaknesses and increases node count by only 5.7% from good to weak papers, compared to 50% in human reviews. Similar trends are observed across all conferences, years, and models, providing empirical foundations for understanding the merits and defects of LLM-generated reviews and informing the development of future LLM-assisted reviewing tools. Data, code, and more detailed results are publicly available at https://github.com/RichardLRC/Peer-Review.

This paper presents a hybrid framework for literature reviews that augments traditional bibliometric methods with large language models (LLMs). By fine-tuning open-source LLMs, our approach enables scalable extraction of qualitative insights from large volumes of research content, enhancing both the breadth and depth of knowledge synthesis. To improve annotation efficiency and consistency, we introduce an error-focused validation process in which LLMs generate initial labels and human reviewers correct misclassifications. Applying this framework to over 20000 scientific articles about human migration, we demonstrate that a domain-adapted LLM can serve as a "specialist" model - capable of accurately selecting relevant studies, detecting emerging trends, and identifying critical research gaps. Notably, the LLM-assisted review reveals a growing scholarly interest in climate-induced migration. However, existing literature disproportionately centers on a narrow set of environmental hazards (e.g., floods, droughts, sea-level rise, and land degradation), while overlooking others that more directly affect human health and well-being, such as air and water pollution or infectious diseases. This imbalance highlights the need for more comprehensive research that goes beyond physical environmental changes to examine their ecological and societal consequences, particularly in shaping migration as an adaptive response. Overall, our proposed framework demonstrates the potential of fine-tuned LLMs to conduct more efficient, consistent, and insightful literature reviews across disciplines, ultimately accelerating knowledge synthesis and scientific discovery.

LLM agents often rely on Skills to describe available tools and recommended procedures. We study a hidden-comment prompt injection risk in this documentation layer: when a Markdown Skill is rendered to HTML, HTML comment blocks can become invisible to human reviewers, yet the raw text may still be supplied verbatim to the model. In experiments, we find that DeepSeek-V3.2 and GLM-4.5-Air can be influenced by malicious instructions embedded in a hidden comment appended to an otherwise legitimate Skill, yielding outputs that contain sensitive tool intentions. A short defensive system prompt that treats Skills as untrusted and forbids sensitive actions prevents these malicious tool calls and instead surfaces the suspicious hidden instructions.

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas, judgments, and claims it expresses. To this end, we propose Sem-Detect, an authorship detection method for peer reviews that operationalizes this principle by combining textual features with claim-level semantic analysis. Sem-Detect compares a target review against multiple AI-generated reviews of the same paper, leveraging the observation that different AI models tend to converge on similar points, while human reviewers introduce more unique and diverse ones. As a result, Sem-Detect is able to distinguish fully AI reviews from authentic human-written ones, including those that have been refined using an LLM but still reflect human judgment. Across a dataset of over 20,000 peer reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS conferences, Sem-Detect improves over the strongest baseline by 25.5% in TPR@0.1% FPR in the binary setting. Moreover, in the three-class scenario, we empirically show that LLM refinement preserves the semantic signals of human reviews, which remain distinct from the patterns exhibited by fully AI-generated text; as a result, fewer than 3.5% of LLM-refined human reviews are misclassified as AI-generated.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence. We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper based on accumulated evidence, as human reviewers do. In this paper, we explore how to enable an LLM-based review agent to perform such proactive investigation. We find that this can be naturally formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log. The structured review log serves as a workspace for the agent to track evidence and intermediate findings collected during review. Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions, outperforming prompt-based methods with much larger frontier LLMs by up to 39% and the strongest fine-tuned baseline by 16% relatively. It also attains the highest win rates against baselines in human evaluation.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) have advanced along two separate lines: graphical interaction and software development through code and the command line. Real digital work requires both, interleaved rather than stacked end to end. We study hybrid CUAs that autonomously decide when to explore an interface, implement software, and run and visually verify their artifacts. We introduce RecreationWorld, a five-platform framework built around recreation: given a running reference, an agent must discover its behavior and build a faithful implementation with no prescribed workflow. RecreationWorld provides reproducible environments on Ubuntu, macOS, Windows, Android, and Web, plus a unified harness with native GUI control and coding tools. The running reference serves as an oracle for hidden behavioral tests, providing execution-grounded rewards. We scale trajectory generation with high-quality open-source applications. Models trained on these trajectories improve across five out-of-distribution coding and hybrid computer-use benchmarks and more frequently verify their rendered outputs, providing evidence of transfer beyond recreation. For held-out evaluation, we introduce RecreationBench, comprising 250 diverse tasks across domains and platforms. Reference-grounded programmatic and visual assertions cover action-conditioned outcomes at multiple interaction depths; each is validated on the reference and by human reviewers before the suite is frozen for automatic scoring. GPT-6 Astra leads at 58.1% overall, but passes all programmatic tests on just 2.8% of tasks. Agents reproduce static interface structure more reliably than interactions and computed outputs, while generated applications remain smaller and more monolithic than their references. We release the benchmark, environments, and test suites.

Image classification accuracy on the ImageNet dataset has been a barometer for progress in computer vision over the last decade. Several recent papers have questioned the degree to which the benchmark remains useful to the community, yet innovations continue to contribute gains to performance, with today's largest models achieving 90%+ top-1 accuracy. To help contextualize progress on ImageNet and provide a more meaningful evaluation for today's state-of-the-art models, we manually review and categorize every remaining mistake that a few top models make in order to provide insight into the long-tail of errors on one of the most benchmarked datasets in computer vision. We focus on the multi-label subset evaluation of ImageNet, where today's best models achieve upwards of 97% top-1 accuracy. Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the supposed mistakes are not mistakes at all, and we uncover new valid multi-labels, demonstrating that, without careful review, we are significantly underestimating the performance of these models. On the other hand, we also find that today's best models still make a significant number of mistakes (40%) that are obviously wrong to human reviewers. To calibrate future progress on ImageNet, we provide an updated multi-label evaluation set, and we curate ImageNet-Major: a 68-example "major error" slice of the obvious mistakes made by today's top models -- a slice where models should achieve near perfection, but today are far from doing so.

Instruction tuning has emerged as a prominent methodology for teaching Large Language Models (LLMs) to follow instructions. However, current instruction datasets predominantly cater to English or are derived from English-dominated LLMs, resulting in inherent biases toward Western culture. This bias significantly impacts the linguistic structures of non-English languages such as Arabic, which has a distinct grammar reflective of the diverse cultures across the Arab region. This paper addresses this limitation by introducing CIDAR: https://hf.co/datasets/arbml/CIDAR, the first open Arabic instruction-tuning dataset culturally-aligned by human reviewers. CIDAR contains 10,000 instruction and output pairs that represent the Arab region. We discuss the cultural relevance of CIDAR via the analysis and comparison to other models fine-tuned on other datasets. Our experiments show that CIDAR can help enrich research efforts in aligning LLMs with the Arabic culture. All the code is available at https://github.com/ARBML/CIDAR.

In material sciences, characterizing faults in periodic structures is vital for understanding material properties. To characterize magnetic labyrinthine patterns, it is necessary to accurately identify junctions and terminals, often featuring over a thousand closely packed defects per image. This study introduces a new technique called TM-CNN (Template Matching - Convolutional Neural Network) designed to detect a multitude of small objects in images, such as defects in magnetic labyrinthine patterns. TM-CNN was used to identify these structures in 444 experimental images, and the results were explored to deepen the understanding of magnetic materials. It employs a two-stage detection approach combining template matching, used in initial detection, with a convolutional neural network, used to eliminate incorrect identifications. To train a CNN classifier, it is necessary to create a large number of training images. This difficulty prevents the use of CNN in many practical applications. TM-CNN significantly reduces the manual workload for creating training images by automatically making most of the annotations and leaving only a small number of corrections to human reviewers. In testing, TM-CNN achieved an impressive F1 score of 0.988, far outperforming traditional template matching and CNN-based object detection algorithms.

The emergence of text-to-image synthesis (TIS) models has significantly influenced digital image creation by producing high-quality visuals from written descriptions. Yet these models heavily rely on the quality and specificity of textual prompts, posing a challenge for novice users who may not be familiar with TIS-model-preferred prompt writing. Existing solutions relieve this via automatic model-preferred prompt generation from user queries. However, this single-turn manner suffers from limited user-centricity in terms of result interpretability and user interactivity. To address these issues, we propose DialPrompt, a multi-turn dialogue-based TIS prompt generation model that emphasises user-centricity. DialPrompt is designed to follow a multi-turn guidance workflow, where in each round of dialogue the model queries user with their preferences on possible optimization dimensions before generating the final TIS prompt. To achieve this, we mined 15 essential dimensions for high-quality prompts from advanced users and curated a multi-turn dataset. Through training on this dataset, DialPrompt can improve interpretability by allowing users to understand the correlation between specific phrases and image attributes. Additionally, it enables greater user control and engagement in the prompt generation process, leading to more personalized and visually satisfying outputs. Experiments indicate that DialPrompt achieves a competitive result in the quality of synthesized images, outperforming existing prompt engineering approaches by 5.7%. Furthermore, in our user evaluation, DialPrompt outperforms existing approaches by 46.5% in user-centricity score and is rated 7.9/10 by 19 human reviewers.

With the rapid development of Model Context Protocol (MCP), the number of MCP servers has surpassed 10,000. However, existing MCP benchmarks are limited to single-server settings with only a few tools, hindering effective evaluation of agent capabilities in large-scale, real-world scenarios. To address this limitation, we present LiveMCPBench, the first comprehensive benchmark comprising 95 real-world tasks grounded in the MCP ecosystem, designed to evaluate LLM agents at scale across diverse servers. To support a scalable and reproducible evaluation pipeline in large-scale MCP environments, we curate LiveMCPTool, a diverse and readily deployable collection of 70 MCP servers and 527 tools. Furthermore, we introduce LiveMCPEval, an LLM-as-a-Judge framework that enables automated and adaptive evaluation in dynamic, time-varying task environments, achieving 81% agreement with human reviewers. Finally, we propose the MCP Copilot Agent, a multi-step agent that routes tools for dynamic planning and executes tools for API interaction across the entire LiveMCPTool suite. Our evaluation covers 10 leading models, with the best-performing model (Claude-Sonnet-4) reaching a 78.95% success rate. However, we observe large performance variance across models, and several widely-used models perform poorly in LiveMCPBench's complex, tool-rich environments. Overall, LiveMCPBench offers the first unified framework for benchmarking LLM agents in realistic, tool-rich, and dynamic MCP environments, laying a solid foundation for scalable and reproducible research on agent capabilities. Our code and data will be publicly available at https://icip-cas.github.io/LiveMCPBench.

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as pre-review agents, if not as fully autonomous peer-review agents. While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process. The majority of the studies performing a systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs generating reviews across science disciplines miss the mark on addressing the alignment/misalignment of reviews along with the utility of LLM generated reviews when compared against publication outcomes such as Citations, Hit-papers, Novelty, and Disruption. This paper presents an experimental study in which we gathered ground-truth reviewer ratings from OpenReview and used various frontier open-weight LLMs to generate reviews of papers to gauge the safety and reliability of incorporating LLMs into the scientific review pipeline. Our findings demonstrate the utility of frontier open-weight LLMs as pre-review screening agents despite highlighting fundamental misalignment risks when deployed as autonomous reviewers. Our results show that all models exhibit weak correlation with human peer reviewers (0.15), with systematic overestimation bias of 3-5 points and uniformly high confidence scores (8.0-9.0/10) despite prediction errors. However, we also observed that LLM reviews correlate more strongly with post-publication metrics than with human scores, suggesting potential utility as pre-review screening tools. Our findings highlight the potential and address the pitfalls of automating peer reviews with language models. We open-sourced our dataset D_{LMRSD} to help the research community expand the safety framework of automating scientific reviews.

Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through BadScientist, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify concern-acceptance conflict -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

Vibe coding produces correct, executable code at speed, but leaves no record of the structural commitments, dependencies, or evidence behind it. Reviewers cannot determine what invariants were assumed, what changed, or why a regression occurred. This is not a generation failure but a control failure: the dominant artifact of AI-assisted development (code plus chat history) performs dimension collapse, flattening complex system topology into low-dimensional text and making systems opaque and fragile under change. We propose Agentic Consensus: a paradigm in which the consensus layer C, an operable world model represented as a typed property graph, replaces code as the primary artifact of engineering. Executable artifacts are derived from C and kept in correspondence via synchronization operators Phi (realize) and Psi (rehydrate). Evidence links directly to structural claims in C, making every commitment auditable and under-specification explicit as measurable consensus entropy rather than a silent guess. Evaluation must move beyond code correctness toward alignment fidelity, consensus entropy, and intervention distance. We propose benchmark task families designed to measure whether consensus-based workflows reduce human intervention compared to chat-driven baselines.

Flattery is an important aspect of human communication that facilitates social bonding, shapes perceptions, and influences behavior through strategic compliments and praise, leveraging the power of speech to build rapport effectively. Its automatic detection can thus enhance the naturalness of human-AI interactions. To meet this need, we present a novel audio textual dataset comprising 20 hours of speech and train machine learning models for automatic flattery detection. In particular, we employ pretrained AST, Wav2Vec2, and Whisper models for the speech modality, and Whisper TTS models combined with a RoBERTa text classifier for the textual modality. Subsequently, we build a multimodal classifier by combining text and audio representations. Evaluation on unseen test data demonstrates promising results, with Unweighted Average Recall scores reaching 82.46% in audio-only experiments, 85.97% in text-only experiments, and 87.16% using a multimodal approach.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35\% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of FOLIO and a subset of MALLS test instances, finding that approximately 39% and 36% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (16.4% and 48%) and incorrect NLI labels in FOLIO (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +9 to +22 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 24% of instances, compared to over 70% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.

We describe a class of tasks called decision-oriented dialogues, in which AI assistants such as large language models (LMs) must collaborate with one or more humans via natural language to help them make complex decisions. We formalize three domains in which users face everyday decisions: (1) choosing an assignment of reviewers to conference papers, (2) planning a multi-step itinerary in a city, and (3) negotiating travel plans for a group of friends. In each of these settings, AI assistants and users have disparate abilities that they must combine to arrive at the best decision: assistants can access and process large amounts of information, while users have preferences and constraints external to the system. For each task, we build a dialogue environment where agents receive a reward based on the quality of the final decision they reach. We evaluate LMs in self-play and in collaboration with humans and find that they fall short compared to human assistants, achieving much lower rewards despite engaging in longer dialogues. We highlight a number of challenges models face in decision-oriented dialogues, ranging from goal-directed behavior to reasoning and optimization, and release our environments as a testbed for future work.

We present HaPy-Bug, a curated dataset of 793 Python source code commits associated with bug fixes, with each line of code annotated by three domain experts. The annotations offer insights into the purpose of modified files, changes at the line level, and reviewers' confidence levels. We analyze HaPy-Bug to examine the distribution of file purposes, types of modifications, and tangled changes. Additionally, we explore its potential applications in bug tracking, the analysis of bug-fixing practices, and the development of repository analysis tools. HaPy-Bug serves as a valuable resource for advancing research in software maintenance and security.

There is growing interest in using AI agents for scientific research, yet fundamental questions remain about their capabilities as scientists and reviewers. To explore these questions, we organized Agents4Science, the first conference in which AI agents serve as both primary authors and reviewers, with humans as co-authors and co-reviewers. Here, we discuss the key learnings from the conference and their implications for human-AI collaboration in science.

Agentic code review in terminal-based environments enables early feedback during local development before pull request creation. However, existing evaluations remain performance-centric and fail to capture the dynamic behaviors of repository-grounded agentic reviewers. Understanding these behaviors is critical for identifying how agentic reviewers succeed, fail, and incur hidden operational costs in practice. Then, we analyze the reviewers' behavior based on their trajectories. Our results show that agentic reviewers achieve higher review precision but incur substantial exploration and validation overhead, while successful reviews are associated with stronger planning and less downstream validation. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trajectory-aware and cost-sensitive evaluation of future agentic code review systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in scientific research assessment, particularly in automated paper review. However, existing LLM-based review systems face significant challenges, including limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepReview, a multi-stage framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. Using DeepReview-13K, a curated dataset with structured annotations, we train DeepReviewer-14B, which outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens. In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21\% and 80.20\% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations. Our work sets a new benchmark for LLM-based paper review, with all resources publicly available. The code, model, dataset and demo have be released in http://ai-researcher.net.

As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person. We argue the gate is the easy part; the hard part is the judgment - which actions to stop - which the field evaluates against two false assumptions: that there is a ground-truth notion of "risky," and that the human reviewer is a perfect, infinitely-available oracle. On a hand-labeled set of 125 adversarially-weighted agent actions we show that (i) reviewers only moderately agree on what is risky (Fleiss' kappa = 0.52), so there is no single correct label; (ii) framing the guard as selective classification under asymmetric cost makes its operating limits measurable, and on hard inputs the guard cannot safely auto-decide; and (iii) when the reviewer is modeled as endogenous (fatiguing as escalation load grows), realized safety becomes an inverted-U in the escalation rate: more human oversight can make a system less safe, and the safety-optimal guard escalates below full escalation - a setting a load-aware policy also uses to resist a flooding attack that slips a malicious action past a fatigued reviewer. Agent oversight, framed this way, is not only a classification problem but a resource-allocation one: human attention is finite, and the guard's escalation policy spends it. We claim none of these mechanisms as novel - fatigue-aware learning-to-defer (FALCON), cost-sensitive deferral under workload constraints (DeCCaF), trajectory-level guarding, and reviewer-fatigue/flooding attacks are all prior art we cite. Our contribution is an open-source agent-oversight system that operationalizes and measures them in the LLM-agent action-gating setting, turning "is my guard good?" from a guess into a curve. The inverted-U and the flooding attack are modeling results that motivate a human study.

Training effective AI agents for multi-turn interactions requires high-quality data that captures realistic human-agent dynamics, yet such data is scarce and expensive to collect manually. We introduce APIGen-MT, a two-phase framework that generates verifiable and diverse multi-turn agent data. In the first phase, our agentic pipeline produces detailed task blueprints with ground-truth actions, leveraging a committee of LLM reviewers and iterative feedback loops. These blueprints are then transformed into complete interaction trajectories through simulated human-agent interplay. We train a family of models -- the xLAM-2-fc-r series with sizes ranging from 1B to 70B parameters. Our models outperform frontier models such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 on tau-bench and BFCL benchmarks, with the smaller models surpassing their larger counterparts, particularly in multi-turn settings, while maintaining superior consistency across multiple trials. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our verified blueprint-to-details approach yields high-quality training data, enabling the development of more reliable, efficient, and capable agents. We open-source both the synthetic data collected and the trained xLAM-2-fc-r models to advance research in AI agents. Models are available on HuggingFace at https://huggingface.co/collections/Salesforce/xlam-2-67ef5be12949d8dcdae354c4 and project website is https://apigen-mt.github.io

A major step toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Super Intelligence is AI's ability to autonomously conduct research - what we term Artificial Research Intelligence (ARI). If machines could generate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and write research papers without human intervention, it would transform science. Sakana recently introduced the 'AI Scientist', claiming to conduct research autonomously, i.e. they imply to have achieved what we term Artificial Research Intelligence (ARI). The AI Scientist gained much attention, but a thorough independent evaluation has yet to be conducted. Our evaluation of the AI Scientist reveals critical shortcomings. The system's literature reviews produced poor novelty assessments, often misclassifying established concepts (e.g., micro-batching for stochastic gradient descent) as novel. It also struggles with experiment execution: 42% of experiments failed due to coding errors, while others produced flawed or misleading results. Code modifications were minimal, averaging 8% more characters per iteration, suggesting limited adaptability. Generated manuscripts were poorly substantiated, with a median of five citations, most outdated (only five of 34 from 2020 or later). Structural errors were frequent, including missing figures, repeated sections, and placeholder text like 'Conclusions Here'. Some papers contained hallucinated numerical results. Despite these flaws, the AI Scientist represents a leap forward in research automation. It generates full research manuscripts with minimal human input, challenging expectations of AI-driven science. Many reviewers might struggle to distinguish its work from human researchers. While its quality resembles a rushed undergraduate paper, its speed and cost efficiency are unprecedented, producing a full paper for USD 6 to 15 with 3.5 hours of human involvement, far outpacing traditional researchers.

Recent advancements in AI agents have demonstrated their growing potential to drive and support scientific discovery. In this work, we introduce MLR-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents on open-ended machine learning research. MLR-Bench includes three key components: (1) 201 research tasks sourced from NeurIPS, ICLR, and ICML workshops covering diverse ML topics; (2) MLR-Judge, an automated evaluation framework combining LLM-based reviewers with carefully designed review rubrics to assess research quality; and (3) MLR-Agent, a modular agent scaffold capable of completing research tasks through four stages: idea generation, proposal formulation, experimentation, and paper writing. Our framework supports both stepwise assessment across these distinct research stages, and end-to-end evaluation of the final research paper. We then use MLR-Bench to evaluate six frontier LLMs and an advanced coding agent, finding that while LLMs are effective at generating coherent ideas and well-structured papers, current coding agents frequently (e.g., in 80% of the cases) produce fabricated or invalidated experimental results--posing a major barrier to scientific reliability. We validate MLR-Judge through human evaluation, showing high agreement with expert reviewers, supporting its potential as a scalable tool for research evaluation. We open-source MLR-Bench to help the community benchmark, diagnose, and improve AI research agents toward trustworthy and transparent scientific discovery.

Matching submissions with suitable reviewers at scale is a growing challenge for major venues, yet existing approaches either rely on coarse proxy signals that conflate general relatedness with true suitability, or require expensive human annotations that are difficult to scale for training. We propose MERIT, a two-stage framework that bridges this gap by converting criterion-level expertise matching into scalable suitability supervision. In the first stage, we train a reviewer assessor via reinforcement learning to identify the expertise dimensions a paper requires, match them against the reviewer's prior work, and produce a suitability decision, with rewards provided by an LLM judge guided by paper-specific expertise rubrics. In the second stage, we distill the assessor's predictions into an embedding-based retriever for efficient large-scale assignment. Experiments show that our 4B reviewer assessor outperforms larger general-purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the resulting retriever achieves state-of-the-art performance across LR-Bench and the CMU Gold dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/Luli3220/MERIT.

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review to complement human judgment with systematic and consistent assessments. ReviewerToo supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria, and can be partially or fully integrated into real conference workflows. We validate ReviewerToo on a carefully curated dataset of 1,963 paper submissions from ICLR 2025, where our experiments with the gpt-oss-120b model achieves 81.8% accuracy for the task of categorizing a paper as accept/reject compared to 83.9% for the average human reviewer. Additionally, ReviewerToo-generated reviews are rated as higher quality than the human average by an LLM judge, though still trailing the strongest expert contributions. Our analysis highlights domains where AI reviewers excel (e.g., fact-checking, literature coverage) and where they struggle (e.g., assessing methodological novelty and theoretical contributions), underscoring the continued need for human expertise. Based on these findings, we propose guidelines for integrating AI into peer-review pipelines, showing how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts. Our work provides a foundation for systematic, hybrid peer-review systems that scale with the growth of scientific publishing.

Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains. However, their search methods generally assume a stationary evaluation criterion: a fixed verifier, benchmark, or labeled dataset that remains valid as the agent improves. This ignores a central feature of evolution: species adapt as their environments change with them. We aim to bring the same principle to recursive self-improvement, making evaluation part of the improvement loop and opening search to evolving evaluators, adversarial objectives, and dynamic utilities that may surpass static benchmarks. We introduce the Red Queen Godel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities. The RQGM makes this possible through controlled utility evolution: search is organized into epochs with a fixed within-epoch evaluation criterion, while the utility can be updated at epoch boundaries, so self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them. We begin by showing that even on verifiable coding tasks, the RQGM improves test pass rate over the prior SOTA by adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal. This signal is cheaper and the RQGM uses 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens. We then turn to scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad-level proof writing and grading, where the RQGM improves performance over prior self-improving agents: co-evolved writers reach 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates under a diverse agent-as-a-judge panel, while co-evolved graders reach 9% higher ground-truth accuracy. In paper reviewing, the strongest baseline reviewer over-accepts AI-generated papers at up to 1.91x the human rate. The RQGM corrects this by introducing an adversarial objective that discovers reviewers equally stringent on AI and human work.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly publications has grown dramatically since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022. This usage is often undisclosed, and it can be challenging for readers and reviewers to identify human written but LLM-revised or translated text, or predominantly LLM-generated text. Given the known quality and reliability issues connected with LLM-generated text, their potential growth poses an increasing problem for research integrity, and for public trust in research. This study presents a simple and easily reproducible methodology to show the growth in the full text of published papers, across the full range of research, as indexed in the Dimensions database. It uses this to demonstrate that LLM tools are likely to have been involved in the production of more than 10% of all published papers in 2024, based on disproportionate use of specific indicative words, and draws together earlier studies to confirm that this is a plausible overall estimate. It then discusses the implications of this for the integrity of scholarly publishing, highlighting evidence that use of LLMs for text generation is still being concealed or downplayed by authors, and presents an argument that more comprehensive disclosure requirements are urgently required to address this.

The advancement of vision-language models (VLMs) is hampered by a fragmented landscape of inconsistent and contaminated public datasets. We introduce FineVision, a meticulously collected, curated, and unified corpus of 24 million samples - the largest open resource of its kind. We unify more than 200 sources into 185 subsets via a semi-automated, human-in-the-loop pipeline: automation performs bulk ingestion and schema mapping, while reviewers audit mappings and spot-check outputs to verify faithful consumption of annotations, appropriate formatting and diversity, and safety; issues trigger targeted fixes and re-runs. The workflow further applies rigorous de-duplication within and across sources and decontamination against 66 public benchmarks. FineVision also encompasses agentic/GUI tasks with a unified action space; reviewers validate schemas and inspect a sample of trajectories to confirm executable fidelity. Models trained on FineVision consistently outperform those trained on existing open mixtures across a broad evaluation suite, underscoring the benefits of scale, data hygiene, and balanced automation with human oversight. We release the corpus and curation tools to accelerate data-centric VLM research.

Large Language Model (LLM) Agents are advancing quickly, with the increasing leveraging of LLM Agents to assist in development tasks such as code generation. While LLM Agents accelerate code generation, studies indicate they may introduce adverse effects on development. However, existing metrics solely measure pass rates, failing to reflect impacts on long-term maintainability and readability, and failing to capture human intuitive evaluations of PR. To increase the comprehensiveness of this problem, we investigate and evaluate the characteristics of LLM to know the pull requests' characteristics beyond the pass rate. We observe the code quality and maintainability within PRs based on code metrics to evaluate objective characteristics and developers' reactions to the pull requests from both humans and LLM's generation. Evaluation results indicate that LLM Agents frequently disregard code reuse opportunities, resulting in higher levels of redundancy compared to human developers. In contrast to the quality issues, our emotions analysis reveals that reviewers tend to express more neutral or positive emotions towards AI-generated contributions than human ones. This disconnect suggests that the surface-level plausibility of AI code masks redundancy, leading to the silent accumulation of technical debt in real-world development environments. Our research provides insights for improving human-AI collaboration.

With the rapid advancement of video understanding, existing benchmarks are becoming increasingly saturated, exposing a critical discrepancy between inflated leaderboard scores and real-world model capabilities. To address this widening gap, we introduce Video-MME-v2, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the robustness and faithfulness of video understanding. To systematically evaluate model capabilities, we design a progressive tri-level hierarchy that incrementally increases the complexity of video comprehension, ranging from multi-point visual information aggregation, to temporal dynamics modeling, and ultimately to complex multimodal reasoning. Besides, in contrast to conventional per-question accuracy, we propose a group-based non-linear evaluation strategy that enforces both consistency across related queries and coherence in multi-step reasoning. It penalizes fragmented or guess-based correctness and assigns credit only to answers supported by valid reasoning. To guarantee data quality, Video-MME-v2 is constructed through a rigorously controlled human annotation pipeline, involving 12 annotators and 50 independent reviewers. Backed by 3,300 human-hours and up to 5 rounds of quality assurance, Video-MME-v2 aims to serve as one of the most authoritative video benchmarks. Extensive experiments reveal a substantial gap between current best model Gemini-3-Pro and human experts, and uncover a clear hierarchical bottleneck where errors in visual information aggregation and temporal modeling propagate to limit high-level reasoning. We further find that thinking-based reasoning is highly dependent on textual cues, improving performance with subtitles but sometimes degrading it in purely visual settings. By exposing these limitations, Video-MME-v2 establishes a demanding new testbed for the development of next-generation video MLLMs.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

AI systems can now cheaply generate plausible scientific artifacts such as papers, reviews, and surveys. This creates a risk of epistemic pollution in our scientific systems, where unreliable but plausible-looking artifacts can accumulate faster than the system can filter them out. The problem is structural: the epistemic infrastructure of science was calibrated to a world where producing a plausible artifact required substantial expertise, labor, and time, so generation cost itself served as a rough filter; AI weakens that filter without comparably lowering verification cost. We argue that AI-era science should treat this as an engineering problem: redesigning epistemic infrastructure to rebalance the costs of generation and verification. The current paper-centered system makes verification expensive: papers compress long-context scientific logic into prose, forcing reviewers, human or AI, to reconstruct underlying argument structure before they can evaluate it. As one step in this direction, we propose blueprints as preliminary epistemic infrastructure: structured, decomposed research artifacts that represent claims, evidence, assumptions, and definitions as typed graph components. Blueprints are designed to trade an upfront generation cost for cheaper, more local, more distributed verification downstream. We have instantiated the proposal in a proof-of-concept prototype.

Generative image models produce striking visuals yet often misrepresent culture. Prior work has examined cultural bias mainly in text-to-image (T2I) systems, leaving image-to-image (I2I) editors underexplored. We bridge this gap with a unified evaluation across six countries, an 8-category/36-subcategory schema, and era-aware prompts, auditing both T2I generation and I2I editing under a standardized protocol that yields comparable diagnostics. Using open models with fixed settings, we derive cross-country, cross-era, and cross-category evaluations. Our framework combines standard automatic metrics, a culture-aware retrieval-augmented VQA, and expert human judgments collected from native reviewers. To enable reproducibility, we release the complete image corpus, prompts, and configurations. Our study reveals three findings: (1) under country-agnostic prompts, models default to Global-North, modern-leaning depictions that flatten cross-country distinctions; (2) iterative I2I editing erodes cultural fidelity even when conventional metrics remain flat or improve; and (3) I2I models apply superficial cues (palette shifts, generic props) rather than era-consistent, context-aware changes, often retaining source identity for Global-South targets. These results highlight that culture-sensitive edits remain unreliable in current systems. By releasing standardized data, prompts, and human evaluation protocols, we provide a reproducible, culture-centered benchmark for diagnosing and tracking cultural bias in generative image models.

To assist human review process, we build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. A good review needs to be knowledgeable, namely that the comments should be constructive and informative to help improve the paper; and explainable by providing detailed evidence. ReviewRobot achieves these goals via three steps: (1) We perform domain-specific Information Extraction to construct a knowledge graph (KG) from the target paper under review, a related work KG from the papers cited by the target paper, and a background KG from a large collection of previous papers in the domain. (2) By comparing these three KGs, we predict a review score and detailed structured knowledge as evidence for each review category. (3) We carefully select and generalize human review sentences into templates, and apply these templates to transform the review scores and evidence into natural language comments. Experimental results show that our review score predictor reaches 71.4%-100% accuracy. Human assessment by domain experts shows that 41.7%-70.5% of the comments generated by ReviewRobot are valid and constructive, and better than human-written ones for 20% of the time. Thus, ReviewRobot can serve as an assistant for paper reviewers, program chairs and authors.

Providing constructive feedback to paper authors is a core component of peer review. With reviewers increasingly having less time to perform reviews, automated support systems are required to ensure high reviewing quality, thus making the feedback in reviews useful for authors. To this end, we identify four key aspects of review comments (individual points in weakness sections of reviews) that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness. To enable evaluation and development of models assessing review comments, we introduce the RevUtil dataset. We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes. The synthetic data additionally contains rationales, i.e., explanations for the aspect score of a review comment. Employing the RevUtil dataset, we benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales. Our experiments demonstrate that these fine-tuned models achieve agreement levels with humans comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those of powerful closed models like GPT-4o. Our analysis further reveals that machine-generated reviews generally underperform human reviews on our four aspects.

We present OpenReviewer, an open-source system for generating high-quality peer reviews of machine learning and AI conference papers. At its core is Llama-OpenReviewer-8B, an 8B parameter language model specifically fine-tuned on 79,000 expert reviews from top conferences. Given a PDF paper submission and review template as input, OpenReviewer extracts the full text, including technical content like equations and tables, and generates a structured review following conference-specific guidelines. Our evaluation on 400 test papers shows that OpenReviewer produces considerably more critical and realistic reviews compared to general-purpose LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude-3.5. While other LLMs tend toward overly positive assessments, OpenReviewer's recommendations closely match the distribution of human reviewer ratings. The system provides authors with rapid, constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts before submission, though it is not intended to replace human peer review. OpenReviewer is available as an online demo and open-source tool.

While prior work has examined the generation capabilities of Agentic AI systems, little is known about how reviewers respond to AI-authored code in practice. In this paper, we present a large-scale empirical study of code review dynamics in agent-generated PRs. Using a curated subset of the AIDev dataset, we analyze 19,450 inline review comments spanning 3,177 agent-authored PRs from real-world GitHub repositories. We first derive a taxonomy of 12 review comment themes using topic modeling combined with large language model (LLM)-assisted semantic clustering and consolidation. According to this taxonomy, we then investigate whether zero-shot prompts to LLM can reliably annotate review comments. Our evaluation against human annotations shows that open-source LLM achieves reasonably high exact match (78.63%), macro F1 score (0.78), and substantial agreement with human annotators at the review comment level. At the PR level, the LLM also correctly identifies the dominant review theme with 78% Top-1 accuracy and achieves an average Jaccard similarity of 0.76, indicating strong alignment with human judgments. Applying this annotation pipeline at scale, we find that apart from functional correctness and logical changes, reviews of agent-authored PRs predominantly focus on documentation gaps, refactoring needs, styling and formatting issues, with testing and security-related concerns. These findings suggest that while AI agents can accelerate code production, there remain gaps requiring targeted human review oversight.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

As software projects progress, quality of code assumes paramount importance as it affects reliability, maintainability and security of software. For this reason, static analysis tools are used in developer workflows to flag code quality issues. However, developers need to spend extra efforts to revise their code to improve code quality based on the tool findings. In this work, we investigate the use of (instruction-following) large language models (LLMs) to assist developers in revising code to resolve code quality issues. We present a tool, CORE (short for COde REvisions), architected using a pair of LLMs organized as a duo comprised of a proposer and a ranker. Providers of static analysis tools recommend ways to mitigate the tool warnings and developers follow them to revise their code. The proposer LLM of CORE takes the same set of recommendations and applies them to generate candidate code revisions. The candidates which pass the static quality checks are retained. However, the LLM may introduce subtle, unintended functionality changes which may go un-detected by the static analysis. The ranker LLM evaluates the changes made by the proposer using a rubric that closely follows the acceptance criteria that a developer would enforce. CORE uses the scores assigned by the ranker LLM to rank the candidate revisions before presenting them to the developer. CORE could revise 59.2% Python files (across 52 quality checks) so that they pass scrutiny by both a tool and a human reviewer. The ranker LLM is able to reduce false positives by 25.8% in these cases. CORE produced revisions that passed the static analysis tool in 76.8% Java files (across 10 quality checks) comparable to 78.3% of a specialized program repair tool, with significantly much less engineering efforts.

Industrial automation is at a pivotal moment, as Physical AI is driving a transition from rigid, hand-engineered automation systems toward more flexible and adaptive systems. This shift has created a growing demand for large-scale, real-world robot demonstration data, making teleoperation an increasingly important mechanism for data collection. However, high-quality teleoperated demonstrations remain difficult to obtain in practice, as novice operators often produce episodes that are task-successful but suboptimal for downstream use due to inefficient motion, repeated corrections, or operation near robot joint limits. We present a Data Quality Assessment and Feedback (DQAF) framework that closes the loop in teleoperation by providing immediate post-episode feedback grounded in semantic task progress and robot telemetry. The framework extracts quality relevant signals such as sub-task progress, motion smoothness, stalls, kinematic limits and converts them into structured quality assessments and actionable natural-language feedback. Unlike binary success or failure feedback, the proposed system explains why an episode is suboptimal and highlights specific behaviors to correct in the next trial. We evaluate the framework through a diagnostic validation study and a pilot user study. In the validation study, the system is compared with a human reviewer during dataset curation, producing rejection reasons and actionable feedback for improvement. In the pilot study with three novice operators across two manipulation tasks, the operator who received the systems immediate, automated post-episode feedback improved faster than those who did not, producing higher-quality demonstrations sooner.

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

Front-end web code has become a core product surface for every frontier LLM release, yet evaluating these interactive applications at development speed remains costly because human-judged leaderboards like Arena do not scale. Existing automated proxies typically lean on reference implementations, test suites, or rigid checklists, and tend to miss the reasoned synthesis a human reviewer performs over a live session. We articulate a new evaluation regime that is simultaneously reference-free, autonomously driven, and holistically reasoned, and instantiate it through two artifacts. \dataname is an 11-domain, 54-leaf, 1,000-query WebDev benchmark spanning both static-presentation and interactive-application tasks, balanced across three difficulty tiers and three target-language groups, with briefs rewritten to resist recall from circulated prompts. \framename, grounded in Flavell's metacognitive monitoring, separates evidence accumulation from judgment across three stages: Static Perception forms a first impression from passive observation; Agent-Driven Interaction explores the application autonomously while capturing continuous screen video, audio, and per-step screenshots; Dynamic Scoring issues holistic functionality and aesthetics verdicts with structured failure attribution only after the evidence chain is complete. On \dataname, \framename aligns closely with expert human ratings while surfacing substantial headroom across 13 frontier LLMs on interactive web generation. \noindenthttps://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cookie-3CE/

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Code review is a vital but demanding aspect of software development, generating significant interest in automating review comments. Traditional evaluation methods for these comments, primarily based on text similarity, face two major challenges: inconsistent reliability of human-authored comments in open-source projects and the weak correlation of text similarity with objectives like enhancing code quality and detecting defects. This study empirically analyzes benchmark comments using a novel set of criteria informed by prior research and developer interviews. We then similarly revisit the evaluation of existing methodologies. Our evaluation framework, DeepCRCEval, integrates human evaluators and Large Language Models (LLMs) for a comprehensive reassessment of current techniques based on the criteria set. Besides, we also introduce an innovative and efficient baseline, LLM-Reviewer, leveraging the few-shot learning capabilities of LLMs for a target-oriented comparison. Our research highlights the limitations of text similarity metrics, finding that less than 10% of benchmark comments are high quality for automation. In contrast, DeepCRCEval effectively distinguishes between high and low-quality comments, proving to be a more reliable evaluation mechanism. Incorporating LLM evaluators into DeepCRCEval significantly boosts efficiency, reducing time and cost by 88.78% and 90.32%, respectively. Furthermore, LLM-Reviewer demonstrates significant potential of focusing task real targets in comment generation.

Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.

Peer assessment has been widely applied across diverse academic fields over the last few decades and has demonstrated its effectiveness. However, the advantages of peer assessment can only be achieved with high-quality peer reviews. Previous studies have found that high-quality review comments usually comprise several features (e.g., contain suggestions, mention problems, use a positive tone). Thus, researchers have attempted to evaluate peer-review comments by detecting different features using various machine learning and deep learning models. However, there is no single study that investigates using a multi-task learning (MTL) model to detect multiple features simultaneously. This paper presents two MTL models for evaluating peer-review comments by leveraging the state-of-the-art pre-trained language representation models BERT and DistilBERT. Our results demonstrate that BERT-based models significantly outperform previous GloVe-based methods by around 6% in F1-score on tasks of detecting a single feature, and MTL further improves performance while reducing model size.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is fundamentally limited by the capacity of humans to correctly evaluate model output. To improve human evaluation ability and overcome that limitation this work trains "critic" models that help humans to more accurately evaluate model-written code. These critics are themselves LLMs trained with RLHF to write natural language feedback highlighting problems in code from real-world assistant tasks. On code containing naturally occurring LLM errors model-written critiques are preferred over human critiques in 63% of cases, and human evaluation finds that models catch more bugs than human contractors paid for code review. We further confirm that our fine-tuned LLM critics can successfully identify hundreds of errors in ChatGPT training data rated as "flawless", even though the majority of those tasks are non-code tasks and thus out-of-distribution for the critic model. Critics can have limitations of their own, including hallucinated bugs that could mislead humans into making mistakes they might have otherwise avoided, but human-machine teams of critics and contractors catch similar numbers of bugs to LLM critics while hallucinating less than LLMs alone.

Peer review is essential for scientific progress but faces growing challenges due to increasing submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical depth, often generating superficial or generic feedback lacking the insights characteristic of high-quality human reviews. We introduce ReviewRL, a reinforcement learning framework for generating comprehensive and factually grounded scientific paper reviews. Our approach combines: (1) an ArXiv-MCP retrieval-augmented context generation pipeline that incorporates relevant scientific literature, (2) supervised fine-tuning that establishes foundational reviewing capabilities, and (3) a reinforcement learning procedure with a composite reward function that jointly enhances review quality and rating accuracy. Experiments on ICLR 2025 papers demonstrate that ReviewRL significantly outperforms existing methods across both rule-based metrics and model-based quality assessments. ReviewRL establishes a foundational framework for RL-driven automatic critique generation in scientific discovery, demonstrating promising potential for future development in this domain. The implementation of ReviewRL will be released at GitHub.

When developing new large language models (LLMs), a key step is evaluating their final performance, often by computing the win-rate against a reference model based on external feedback. Human feedback is the gold standard, particularly for capturing nuanced qualities like coherence, readability, and alignment with human expectations. However, human evaluations are costly -- even for large tech companies -- and when conducted with active users, they may negatively impact user experience. A promising alternative is synthetic feedback, where evaluations are conducted by other large language models, including reward models. While this eliminates the need for costly human annotations, it introduces biases that may distort the evaluation process. In this work, we propose a statistically principled framework that integrates human and synthetic feedback to reduce reliance on human annotations while maintaining unbiased win-rate calculations. Our experiments demonstrate a reduction in human annotations by up to 12.2% with an off-the-shelf synthetic evaluator and up to 24.8% with a finetuned variant. Apart from being generalizable, scalable, and free of hyper-parameter tuning, our method offers predictable annotation savings, which can be estimated based on data-dependent characteristics.

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs and verify moderate agreements. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality. A thorough disagreement analysis further supports a potential of fully automated ReviewScore evaluation.

The growing integration of large language models (LLMs) into the peer review process presents potential risks to the fairness and reliability of scholarly evaluation. While LLMs offer valuable assistance for reviewers with language refinement, there is growing concern over their use to generate substantive review content. Existing general AI-generated text detectors are vulnerable to paraphrasing attacks and struggle to distinguish between surface language refinement and substantial content generation, suggesting that they primarily rely on stylistic cues. When applied to peer review, this limitation can result in unfairly suspecting reviews with permissible AI-assisted language enhancement, while failing to catch deceptively humanized AI-generated reviews. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift from style-based to content-based detection. Specifically, we introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews, covering six distinct modes of human-AI collaboration. Furthermore, we develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, designed to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content. Our work offers a practical foundation for evaluating the use of LLMs in peer review, and contributes to the development of more precise, equitable, and reliable detection methods for real-world scholarly applications. Our code and data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Y1hanChen/COCONUTS.

Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of manuscripts which are submitted for publication. With the recent rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), a new risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on LLMs to perform the often time consuming process of reviewing a paper. However, there is a lack of existing resources for benchmarking the detectability of AI text in the domain of peer review. To address this deficiency, we introduce a comprehensive dataset containing a total of 788,984 AI-written peer reviews paired with corresponding human reviews, covering 8 years of papers submitted to each of two leading AI research conferences (ICLR and NeurIPS). We use this new resource to evaluate the ability of 18 existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews fully written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs. Additionally, we explore a context-aware detection method called Anchor, which leverages manuscript content to detect AI-generated reviews, and analyze the sensitivity of detection models to LLM-assisted editing of human-written text. Our work reveals the difficulty of identifying AI-generated text at the individual peer review level, highlighting the urgent need for new tools and methods to detect this unethical use of generative AI. Our dataset is publicly available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/IntelLabs/AI-Peer-Review-Detection-Benchmark.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

AI is increasingly playing a pivotal role in transforming how scientific discoveries are made. We introduce The AI Scientist-v2, an end-to-end agentic system capable of producing the first entirely AI generated peer-review-accepted workshop paper. This system iteratively formulates scientific hypotheses, designs and executes experiments, analyzes and visualizes data, and autonomously authors scientific manuscripts. Compared to its predecessor (v1, Lu et al., 2024 arXiv:2408.06292), The AI Scientist-v2 eliminates the reliance on human-authored code templates, generalizes effectively across diverse machine learning domains, and leverages a novel progressive agentic tree-search methodology managed by a dedicated experiment manager agent. Additionally, we enhance the AI reviewer component by integrating a Vision-Language Model (VLM) feedback loop for iterative refinement of content and aesthetics of the figures. We evaluated The AI Scientist-v2 by submitting three fully autonomous manuscripts to a peer-reviewed ICLR workshop. Notably, one manuscript achieved high enough scores to exceed the average human acceptance threshold, marking the first instance of a fully AI-generated paper successfully navigating a peer review. This accomplishment highlights the growing capability of AI in conducting all aspects of scientific research. We anticipate that further advancements in autonomous scientific discovery technologies will profoundly impact human knowledge generation, enabling unprecedented scalability in research productivity and significantly accelerating scientific breakthroughs, greatly benefiting society at large. We have open-sourced the code at https://github.com/SakanaAI/AI-Scientist-v2 to foster the future development of this transformative technology. We also discuss the role of AI in science, including AI safety.

Helpful reviews have been essential for the success of e-commerce services, as they help customers make quick purchase decisions and benefit the merchants in their sales. While many reviews are informative, others provide little value and may contain spam, excessive appraisal, or unexpected biases. With the large volume of reviews and their uneven quality, the problem of detecting helpful reviews has drawn much attention lately. Existing methods for identifying helpful reviews primarily focus on review text and ignore the two key factors of (1) who post the reviews and (2) when the reviews are posted. Moreover, the helpfulness votes suffer from scarcity for less popular products and recently submitted (a.k.a., cold-start) reviews. To address these challenges, we introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history of the reviewers, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness. We conduct experiments on our dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating these factors and report improved results compared to several well-established baselines.

Modern Code Review (MCR) is an informal tool-assisted quality assurance practice. It relies on the asynchronous communication among the authors of code changes and reviewers, who are developers that provide feedback. However, from candidate developers, some are able to provide better feedback than others given a particular context. The selection of reviewers is thus an important task, which can benefit from automated support. Many approaches have been proposed in this direction, using for example data from code review repositories to recommend reviewers. In this paper, we propose the use of team-related features to improve the performance of predictions that are helpful to build code reviewer recommenders, with our target predictions being the identification of reviewers that would participate in a review and the provided amount of feedback. We evaluate the prediction power of these features, which are related to code ownership, workload, and team relationship. This evaluation was done by carefully addressing challenges imposed by the MCR domain, such as temporal aspects of the dataset and unbalanced classes. Moreover, given that it is currently unknown how much past data is needed for building MCR prediction models with acceptable performance, we explore the amount of past data used to build prediction models. Our results show that, individually, features related to code ownership have the best prediction power. However, based on feature selection, we conclude that all proposed features together with lines of code can make the best predictions for both reviewer participation and amount of feedback. Regarding the amount of past data, the timeframes of 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of data produce similar results. Therefore, models can be trained considering short timeframes, thus reducing the computational costs with negligible impact in the prediction performance ...

The peer review process is crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of scholarly work, yet assigning suitable reviewers remains a significant challenge. Traditional manual methods are labor-intensive and often ineffective, leading to nonconstructive or biased reviews. This paper introduces the exHarmony (eHarmony but for connecting experts to manuscripts) benchmark, designed to address these challenges by re-imagining the Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) as a retrieval task. Utilizing the extensive data from OpenAlex, we propose a novel approach that considers a host of signals from the authors, most similar experts, and the citation relations as potential indicators for a suitable reviewer for a manuscript. This approach allows us to develop a standard benchmark dataset for evaluating the reviewer assignment problem without needing explicit labels. We benchmark various methods, including traditional lexical matching, static neural embeddings, and contextualized neural embeddings, and introduce evaluation metrics that assess both relevance and diversity in the context of RAP. Our results indicate that while traditional methods perform reasonably well, contextualized embeddings trained on scholarly literature show the best performance. The findings underscore the importance of further research to enhance the diversity and effectiveness of reviewer assignments.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

Peer review in machine learning is under growing pressure from rising submission volume and limited reviewer time. Most LLM-based reviewing systems read only the manuscript and generate comments from the paper's own narrative. This makes their outputs sensitive to presentation quality and leaves them weak when the evidence needed for review lies in related work or released code. We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification. Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository under bounded budgets to test central empirical claims. It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive. In a case study on CompGCN, FactReview reproduces results that closely match those reported for link prediction and node classification, yet also shows that the paper's broader performance claim across tasks is not fully sustained: on MUTAG graph classification, the reproduced result is 88.4%, whereas the strongest baseline reported in the paper remains 92.6%. The claim is therefore only partially supported. More broadly, this case suggests that AI is most useful in peer review not as a final decision-maker, but as a tool for gathering evidence and helping reviewers produce more evidence-grounded assessments. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/Review-Assistant.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance across various tasks, yet their ability to handle long-context reading remains challenging. This study explores the effectiveness of leveraging high-quality academic peer review data for fine-tuning LLMs to enhance their long-context capabilities. We compare the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) method with the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) method, demonstrating DPO's superiority and data efficiency. Our experiments show that the fine-tuned model achieves a 4.04-point improvement over phi-3 and a 2.6\% increase on the Qasper benchmark using only 2000 samples. Despite facing limitations in data scale and processing costs, this study underscores the potential of DPO and high-quality data in advancing LLM performance. Additionally, the zero-shot benchmark results indicate that aggregated high-quality human reviews are overwhelmingly preferred over LLM-generated responses, even for the most capable models like GPT-4o. This suggests that high-quality human reviews are extremely rich in information, reasoning, and long-context retrieval, capabilities that even the most advanced models have not fully captured. These findings highlight the high utility of leveraging human reviews to further advance the field.

Peer review is a cornerstone of quality control in scientific publishing. With the increasing workload, the unintended use of `quick' heuristics, referred to as lazy thinking, has emerged as a recurring issue compromising review quality. Automated methods to detect such heuristics can help improve the peer-reviewing process. However, there is limited NLP research on this issue, and no real-world dataset exists to support the development of detection tools. This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Our analysis reveals that Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. However, instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points, highlighting the importance of high-quality training data. Furthermore, a controlled experiment demonstrates that reviews revised with lazy thinking feedback are more comprehensive and actionable than those written without such feedback. We will release our dataset and the enhanced guidelines that can be used to train junior reviewers in the community. (Code available here: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-lazy-review)

Advances in AI-assisted research have introduced powerful tools for literature retrieval, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and manuscript preparation. However, systems remain fragmented and lack human-centred workflows. To address these gaps, we introduce AIssistant, an agentic, open-source Human-AI collaborative framework designed to simplify the end-to-end creation of scientific workflows. Since our development is still in an early stage, we present here the first experiments with AIssistant for perspective and review research papers in machine learning. Our system integrates modular tools and agents for literature synthesis, section-wise experimentation, citation management, and automatic LaTeX paper text generation, while maintaining human oversight at every stage to ensure accuracy, coherence, and scholarly rigour. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation across three layers: (1) Independent Human Review, following NeurIPS double-blind standards; (2) Automated LLM Review, using GPT-5 as a scalable human review proxy; and (3) Program Chair Oversight, where the chair monitors the entire review process and makes final validation and acceptance decisions. The results demonstrate that AIssistant improves drafting efficiency and thematic consistency. Nonetheless, Human-AI collaboration remains essential for maintaining factual correctness, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Despite its effectiveness, we identify key limitations, including hallucinated citations, difficulty adapting to dynamic paper structures, and incomplete integration of multimodal content.

Acquiring reviewers for academic submissions is a challenging recommendation scenario. Recent graph learning-driven models have made remarkable progress in the field of recommendation, but their performance in the academic reviewer recommendation task may suffer from a significant false negative issue. This arises from the assumption that unobserved edges represent negative samples. In fact, the mechanism of anonymous review results in inadequate exposure of interactions between reviewers and submissions, leading to a higher number of unobserved interactions compared to those caused by reviewers declining to participate. Therefore, investigating how to better comprehend the negative labeling of unobserved interactions in academic reviewer recommendations is a significant challenge. This study aims to tackle the ambiguous nature of unobserved interactions in academic reviewer recommendations. Specifically, we propose an unsupervised Pseudo Neg-Label strategy to enhance graph contrastive learning (GCL) for recommending reviewers for academic submissions, which we call RevGNN. RevGNN utilizes a two-stage encoder structure that encodes both scientific knowledge and behavior using Pseudo Neg-Label to approximate review preference. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that RevGNN outperforms all baselines across four metrics. Additionally, detailed further analyses confirm the effectiveness of each component in RevGNN.

User-generated reviews significantly influence consumer decisions, particularly in the travel domain when selecting accommodations. This paper contribution comprising two main elements. Firstly, we present a novel dataset of authentic guest reviews sourced from a prominent online travel platform, totaling over two million reviews from 50,000 distinct accommodations. Secondly, we propose an innovative approach for personalized review ranking. Our method employs contrastive learning to intricately capture the relationship between a review and the contextual information of its respective reviewer. Through a comprehensive experimental study, we demonstrate that our approach surpasses several baselines across all reported metrics. Augmented by a comparative analysis, we showcase the efficacy of our method in elevating personalized review ranking. The implications of our research extend beyond the travel domain, with potential applications in other sectors where personalized review ranking is paramount, such as online e-commerce platforms.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

By consolidating scattered knowledge, the literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of the investigated topic. However, reading, conducting, or peer-reviewing review papers generally demands a significant investment of time and effort from researchers. To improve efficiency, this paper aims to provide a thorough review of reviews in the PAMI field from diverse perspectives. First, this paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. To facilitate this, a meta-data database dubbed RiPAMI, and a topic dataset are constructed. Second, based on these indicators, the study presents comparative analyses of representative reviews, unveiling the characteristics of publications across various fields, periods, and journals. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised, and the observed differences suggest that most AI-generated reviews still lag behind human-authored reviews in multiple aspects. Third, we briefly provide a subjective evaluation of representative PAMI reviews and introduce a paper structure-based typology of literature reviews. This typology may improve the clarity and effectiveness for scholars in reading and writing reviews, while also serving as a guide for AI systems in generating well-organized reviews. Finally, this work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.

Human preference judgments are pivotal in guiding large language models (LLMs) to produce outputs that align with human values. Human evaluations are also used in summarization tasks to compare outputs from various systems, complementing existing automatic metrics. Despite their significance, however, there has been limited research probing these pairwise or k-wise comparisons. The collective impact and relative importance of factors such as output length, informativeness, fluency, and factual consistency are still not well understood. It is also unclear if there are other hidden factors influencing human judgments. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth examination of a collection of pairwise human judgments released by OpenAI. Utilizing the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, we reveal the inherent preferences embedded in these human judgments. We find that the most favored factors vary across tasks and genres, whereas the least favored factors tend to be consistent, e.g., outputs are too brief, contain excessive off-focus content or hallucinated facts. Our findings have implications on the construction of balanced datasets in human preference evaluations, which is a crucial step in shaping the behaviors of future LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.

LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or scores quality with features designed for human-written reviews; no prior system detects deficiencies in LLM-generated reviews at the level of individual defect types. To bridge the gap, we introduce TADDLE, a Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews, together with the first expert-annotated benchmark for this task. Our benchmark comprises 1,800 reviews on 50 ICLR 2025 papers, multi-label-annotated by 18 domain experts against a taxonomy of six defect categories (plus a non-deficient label). TADDLE decomposes detection into four specialized analysis tools -- Verify, Correct, Complete, and Transform -- orchestrated by an agent; an integrator synthesizes their outputs into binary and multi-label classifications via two-stage semi-supervised learning. Extensive experiments show that TADDLE performs strongly on both binary detection and the multi-label classification task. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/AquariusAQ/TADDLE.

Recommender systems are quintessential applications of human-computer interaction. Widely utilized in daily life, they offer significant convenience but also present numerous challenges, such as the information cocoon effect, privacy concerns, fairness issues, and more. Consequently, this workshop aims to provide a platform for researchers to explore the development of Human-Centered Recommender Systems~(HCRS). HCRS refers to the creation of recommender systems that prioritize human needs, values, and capabilities at the core of their design and operation. In this workshop, topics will include, but are not limited to, robustness, privacy, transparency, fairness, diversity, accountability, ethical considerations, and user-friendly design. We hope to engage in discussions on how to implement and enhance these properties in recommender systems. Additionally, participants will explore diverse evaluation methods, including innovative metrics that capture user satisfaction and trust. This workshop seeks to foster a collaborative environment for researchers to share insights and advance the field toward more ethical, user-centric, and socially responsible recommender systems.

Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper -- and many algorithms have been proposed to compute these scores. However, these algorithms have not been subjected to a principled comparison, making it difficult for stakeholders to choose the algorithm in an evidence-based manner. The key challenge in comparing existing algorithms and developing better algorithms is the lack of publicly available gold-standard data. We address this challenge by collecting a novel dataset of similarity scores that we release to the research community. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers who evaluated their expertise in reviewing papers they have read previously. Using our dataset, we compare several widely used similarity algorithms and offer key insights. First, all algorithms exhibit significant error, with misranking rates between 12%-30% in easier cases and 36%-43% in harder ones. Second, most specialized algorithms are designed to work with titles and abstracts of papers, and in this regime the SPECTER2 algorithm performs best. Interestingly, classical TF-IDF matches SPECTER2 in accuracy when given access to full submission texts. In contrast, off-the-shelf LLMs lag behind specialized approaches.

AI-powered people search platforms are increasingly used in recruiting, sales prospecting, and professional networking, yet no widely accepted benchmark exists for evaluating their performance. We introduce PeopleSearchBench, an open-source benchmark that compares four people search platforms on 119 real-world queries across four use cases: corporate recruiting, B2B sales prospecting, expert search with deterministic answers, and influencer/KOL discovery. A key contribution is Criteria-Grounded Verification, a factual relevance pipeline that extracts explicit, verifiable criteria from each query and uses live web search to determine whether returned people satisfy them. This produces binary relevance judgments grounded in factual verification rather than subjective holistic LLM-as-judge scores. We evaluate systems on three dimensions: Relevance Precision (padded nDCG@10), Effective Coverage (task completion and qualified result yield), and Information Utility (profile completeness and usefulness), averaged equally into an overall score. Lessie, a specialized AI people search agent, performs best overall, scoring 65.2, 18.5% higher than the second-ranked system, and is the only system to achieve 100% task completion across all 119 queries. We also report confidence intervals, human validation of the verification pipeline (Cohen's kappa = 0.84), ablations, and full documentation of queries, prompts, and normalization procedures. Code, query definitions, and aggregated results are available on GitHub.

Peer review, as a cornerstone of scientific research, ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly work by providing authors with objective feedback for refinement. However, in the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback, which provides limited assistance and leads to a more time-consuming review cycle. If authors can identify some specific weaknesses in their paper, they can not only address the reviewer's concerns but also improve their work. This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments. In this paper, we present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions behind them. We construct two types of graphs for each paper: the semantic mind graph, which captures the author's thought process, and the hierarchical background graph, which delineates the research domains related to the paper. A retrieval method is then designed to extract relevant content from both graphs, facilitating coherent explanations for the review comments. Extensive experiments show that SEAGraph excels in review comment understanding tasks, offering significant benefits to authors.

Human evaluation is the foundation upon which the evaluation of both summarization systems and automatic metrics rests. However, existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale, and an in-depth analysis of human evaluation is lacking. Therefore, we address the shortcomings of existing summarization evaluation along the following axes: (1) We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units and allows for a high inter-annotator agreement. (2) We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems on three datasets. (3) We conduct a comparative study of four human evaluation protocols, underscoring potential confounding factors in evaluation setups. (4) We evaluate 50 automatic metrics and their variants using the collected human annotations across evaluation protocols and demonstrate how our benchmark leads to more statistically stable and significant results. The metrics we benchmarked include recent methods based on large language models (LLMs), GPTScore and G-Eval. Furthermore, our findings have important implications for evaluating LLMs, as we show that LLMs adjusted by human feedback (e.g., GPT-3.5) may overfit unconstrained human evaluation, which is affected by the annotators' prior, input-agnostic preferences, calling for more robust, targeted evaluation methods.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.

Generating accurate code review comments remains a significant challenge due to the inherently diverse and non-unique nature of the task output. Large language models pretrained on both programming and natural language data tend to perform well in code-oriented tasks. However, large-scale pretraining is not always feasible due to its environmental impact and project-specific generalizability issues. In this work, first we fine-tune open-source Large language models (LLM) in parameter-efficient, quantized low-rank (QLoRA) fashion on consumer-grade hardware to improve review comment generation. Recent studies demonstrate the efficacy of augmenting semantic metadata information into prompts to boost performance in other code-related tasks. To explore this in code review activities, we also prompt proprietary, closed-source LLMs augmenting the input code patch with function call graphs and code summaries. Both of our strategies improve the review comment generation performance, with function call graph augmented few-shot prompting on the GPT-3.5 model surpassing the pretrained baseline by around 90% BLEU-4 score on the CodeReviewer dataset. Moreover, few-shot prompted Gemini-1.0 Pro, QLoRA fine-tuned Code Llama and Llama 3.1 models achieve competitive results (ranging from 25% to 83% performance improvement) on this task. An additional human evaluation study further validates our experimental findings, reflecting real-world developers' perceptions of LLM-generated code review comments based on relevant qualitative metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality. Besides the growing research popularity, another key factor in this overload is the repeated resubmission of substandard manuscripts, largely due to the lack of effective tools for authors to self-evaluate their work before submission. Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in assisting both authors and reviewers, and their performance is fundamentally limited by the quality of the peer review data. However, existing peer review datasets face three major limitations: (1) limited data diversity, (2) inconsistent and low-quality data due to the use of revised rather than initial submissions, and (3) insufficient support for tasks involving rebuttal and reviewer-author interactions. To address these challenges, we introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re^2, which comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21 workshops on OpenReview. Moreover, the rebuttal and discussion stage is framed as a multi-turn conversation paradigm to support both traditional static review tasks and dynamic interactive LLM assistants, providing more practical guidance for authors to refine their manuscripts and helping alleviate the growing review burden. Our data and code are available in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ReviewBench_anon/.

Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction (MRHP) is an essential task in recommender systems, particularly in E-commerce platforms. Determining the helpfulness of user-generated reviews enhances user experience and improves consumer decision-making. However, existing datasets focus predominantly on English and Indonesian, resulting in a lack of linguistic diversity, especially for low-resource languages such as Vietnamese. In this paper, we introduce ViMRHP (Vietnamese Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction), a large-scale benchmark dataset for MRHP task in Vietnamese. This dataset covers four domains, including 2K products with 46K reviews. Meanwhile, a large-scale dataset requires considerable time and cost. To optimize the annotation process, we leverage AI to assist annotators in constructing the ViMRHP dataset. With AI assistance, annotation time is reduced (90 to 120 seconds per task down to 20 to 40 seconds per task) while maintaining data quality and lowering overall costs by approximately 65%. However, AI-generated annotations still have limitations in complex annotation tasks, which we further examine through a detailed performance analysis. In our experiment on ViMRHP, we evaluate baseline models on human-verified and AI-generated annotations to assess their quality differences. The ViMRHP dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/trng28/ViMRHP