The study evaluates five large language model (LLM) review paradigms across different input formats and models on 232 ICLR 2025 submissions. Direct absolute rating aligns with human rankings but tends to over‑accept papers, while recalibration improves agreement and reduces API calls. Abstract‑only inputs outperform full‑paper summarization, and model choice is as influential as the paradigm itself, yet none of the LLM methods surpasses a simple always‑reject baseline in accuracy.
By Fan Huang, Hongyu Zhou
arXiv:2608. 03659v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Abraham Camelo-Guerrero, Jairo Diaz-Rodriguez
arXiv:2608.28626v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews, prompting examination of their capacity for critical evaluation. This st...
By Emad Alharbi
The paper introduces a method to mitigate reviewer lottery error in scientific peer review by generating checklists of criticisms from historical review data. These checklists are organized into a tree of coarsenings, and the optimal coarsening is chosen to maximize correlated agreement among reviewers. Experiments on NeurIPS 2021 and ICLR 2022 data show that the learned checklists significantly reduce mean squared error in simulated and human review settings.
By Xuanyou Liu, Ziyang Guo, Jason Hartline, Jessica Hullman
The paper investigates whether peer review quality is declining by developing a framework for evidence-based comparison across venues and time. It applies this framework to major AI and machine learning conferences—ICLR, NeurIPS, and ACL—documenting diverse review formats and proposing a multi-dimensional schema that combines LLM-based and lightweight metrics. The study finds no consistent decline in median review quality over time, offering alternative explanations and recommendations for future empirical research.
By Ilia Kuznetsov, Rohan Nayak, Alla Rozovskaya, Iryna Gurevych
Researchers investigated how different large language models (LLMs) convert corporate text into empirical variables, focusing on thirteen measures such as sentiment, management clarity, uncertainty, answer specificity, and climate and political risk. Using seven LLMs to score earnings call transcripts of S&P 500 companies, they found low cross-model rank correlations (average 0.52) and that transcript-level differences across providers explained only 34% of total score variation. The study shows that model choice significantly alters downstream inference, with varying coefficient magnitudes, signs, and statistical significance, and that averaging across providers stabilizes rankings but not score levels.
By Hamid Boustanifar, Sasan Mansouri