Ideation Arena is a battle-style platform that evaluates research ideas generated by large language models (LLMs) and research agents through pairwise human assessment. The system builds shared literature contexts, collects over 6,000 double-blind comparisons from 105 computer science researchers, and constructs an Elo rating leaderboard to rank proposal-stage expert preferences. It also introduces Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark to test whether automated evaluators align with human preferences, finding that current LLM judges achieve at best 72.56% Soft Accuracy on overall quality.
By Zhiyu Chen, Keyu Zhao, Jigao Fu, Dong Liang, Yanbiao Wu, Jiaoyang Li, Haidong Xue, Xinhua Zeng, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency.
arXiv:2606. 19749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated.
By Dang Nguyen, Wanqing Hao, Yanai Elazar, Chenhao Tan
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
By MD Aidul Islam, Malik Abdul Sami, Muhammad Waseem, Zeeshan Rasheed, Kai-kristian Kemell, Zheying Zhang, Pekka Abrahamsson
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
By Vaibhava Lakshmi Ravideshik, Mayank Kejriwal
arXiv:2609.13760v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Publishing a research manuscript is a routine yet demanding part of scientific life: time-consuming, stressful, and often uncertain in outcome. Recent...
By Jiawen Chen, Zichen Zhang, Bingxuan Li, Quan Sun, Yiyan Zhang, Edric Tam, Jinjie Lin, Didong Li, Yun Li, Bingxin Zhao
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: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:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
The study evaluates literature reviews produced by large language models (LLMs) using short and long context windows, assessing their quality across 15 dimensions. Results show that while larger context windows allow LLMs to incorporate more information and maintain coherence, they also increase repetition, omission of key works, and a tendency toward descriptive rather than synthetic content. Human oversight remains essential for meeting academic publishing standards, and the authors suggest future work should blend human expertise with AI to mitigate these limitations.
By Muhammad Ali Chaudhry, Xinyuan Hao, Haifa Alwahaby
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
PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.
By Kevin Qinghong Lin, Siyuan Hu, Pan Lu, Yu Chen, Yanzhe Chen, Owen Queen, Yupeng Chen, Jialin Yu, Junchi Yu, Zifeng Ding, Yuanfeng Ji, Sheng Liu, Jindong Gu, Linjie Li, Mike Zheng Shou, Philip Torr, James Zou