The paper examines the intermediate‑entropy regime of natural language generation, where a single input can have multiple valid outputs such as in peer‑review generation and image captioning. It introduces a target‑side consolidation method that merges all references into a single target preserving every distinct information unit, and presents the MERC‑67K dataset of 36,537 papers and 31,014 images with both original and consolidated references. Human evaluations show that models trained on consolidated references achieve higher coverage and overall quality scores, outperforming multi‑reference baselines across several large language models while using fewer individual references during training.
By Maitreya Prafulla Chitale, Ketaki Mangesh Shetye, Yash More, Harshit Gupta, Manav Chaudhary, Manish Shrivastava, Vasudeva Varma
Large language models are increasingly used as automated reviewers in scientific evaluation, creating a recursive feedback loop where later reviewers learn from earlier model-generated judgments. A study using Llama 3.1 8B fine‑tuned on ICLR reviews shows that incorporating synthetic reviews compresses rating distributions and reduces semantic diversity, a phenomenon termed scientific‑judgment collapse. To counter this, the authors introduce TrustReviewer, an open‑source LLM system that curates training data and applies paired activation steering at test time to preserve judgment diversity and improve recommendation alignment.
By Sy-Tuyen Ho, Minghui Liu, Furong Huang
The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat
OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.
By Martin Docekal, Martin Fajcik, Pavel Smrz
arXiv:2604. 09497v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases.
By Hippolyte Gisserot-Boukhlef, Nicolas Boizard, Emmanuel Malherbe, C\'eline Hudelot, Pierre Colombo
arXiv:2608. 03859v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) pose challenges to academic integrity and peer review.
By Peijia Guo, Wenxuan Xie, ZiGuang Li, Ming Li
arXiv:2609.24028v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approac...
By Xinzhe Wang, Fei Tao, Jiang Xie, Hong Yu, Ye Wang
The LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework has emerged as a promising solution for cheap, reproducible, reference-free Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation. Prior work seeks to improve LLMaJ by deco...
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.
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
By Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu, Xiaochen Wang, Jimin Wang
arXiv:2608. 03581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber, Kry\v{s}tof Ol\'ik, Georg Groh
The paper evaluates whether breaking down evaluation tasks into simpler sub‑tasks improves the LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework for reference‑free NLG assessment. Systematic comparisons across multiple datasets show no performance advantage for LLMaJ methods that use task decomposition over a fair baseline that does not. The authors attribute previously reported gains to the use of human labels for training rather than to decomposition itself, and note that LLMaJ without decomposition can match human annotators when such labels are available.
By Sebastian Steindl, Nikos Voskarides, Alberto Gasparin, Diego Marcheggiani