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
arXiv:2601. 14171v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details.
By Qianli Ma, Chang Guo, Zhiheng Tian, Siyu Wang, Jipeng Xiao, Yuanhao Yue, Zhipeng Zhang
arXiv:2609.23264v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Peer-review evaluation is increasingly being automated with LLM-as-a-judge metrics, but this creates a measurement risk. A review may receive a high sc...
By Shakiba Amirshahi, Sajad Ebrahimi, Hai Son Le, Negar Arabzadeh, Ebrahim Bagheri
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
arXiv:2609.22805v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Natural language generation (NLG) tasks span the spectrum of conditional entropy, ranging from highly constrained machine translation to open-ended dia...
By Maitreya Prafulla Chitale, Ketaki Mangesh Shetye, Yash More, Harshit Gupta, Manav Chaudhary, Manish Shrivastava, Vasudeva Varma
arXiv:2608.20488v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI tools increasingly support tasks across the scientific research cycle, from experiment design and manuscript preparation to peer review. At the same...
By Anirudh Sundar, Min Chen, Divya Tadimeti, Gemma Zhang, Alice Li, Nigel Boachie Kumankumah, Pavan Uttej Ravva, Sadid Hasan, Somya Chatterjee, Pruthvi Prakash Navada, Xiao Wang, Yue Kang, Sulaiman Vesal, Larry Heck
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
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. 26437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist.
By Siyi Liu, Aaron Halfaker, Dan Roth, Patrick Xia
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
arXiv:2506. 08134v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale.
By Qiyao Wei, Samuel Holt, Jing Yang, Markus Wulfmeier, Mihaela van der Schaar
arXiv:2609.05947v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Peer review is central to quality control in science. However, existing evaluations of AI-assisted peer review mainly focus on the overall quality of g...
By Siming Yuan, Xueyi Zhang, Wangze Ni, Tianfang Xiao, Shimin Di, Jia Zhu, Zhuoren Jiang, Rong Tan, Lei Chen, Kui Ren