Daily Papers

Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approaches typically formulate meta-review generation as a multi-document summarization task and aggregate reviewer feedback uniformly, making it difficult to determine which opinions should be prioritized under disagreement. In this paper, we study meta-review generation through reliability-aware evidence aggregation. Our framework first extracts aspect-level opinions from peer reviews and identifies conflicting evidence within each aspect. It then estimates opinion-level support and review-level quality to measure evidence reliability. Based on these signals, the framework assigns reliability-aware weights to reviewer feedback, enabling the generator to prioritize better-supported arguments while preserving diverse perspectives. Experiments demonstrate that our method consistently improves meta-review generation over strong baselines on both automatic and human evaluations, with clear gains in conflict recognition and resolution under high-conflict review scenarios. The code and implementation details are publicly available at https://github.com/Wangxz729/reliability-aware-meta-review.

Code review is a cornerstone of software quality assurance, and recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in its automation. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-based code review face three major limitations. Lack of semantic context: most benchmarks provide only code diffs without textual information such as issue descriptions, which are crucial for understanding developer intent. Data quality issues: without rigorous validation, many samples are noisy-e.g., reviews on outdated or irrelevant code-reducing evaluation reliability. Coarse granularity: most benchmarks operate at the file or commit level, overlooking the fine-grained, line-level reasoning essential for precise review. We introduce ContextCRBench, a high-quality, context-rich benchmark for fine-grained LLM evaluation in code review. Our construction pipeline comprises: Raw Data Crawling, collecting 153.7K issues and pull requests from top-tier repositories; Comprehensive Context Extraction, linking issue-PR pairs for textual context and extracting the full surrounding function or class for code context; and Multi-stage Data Filtering, combining rule-based and LLM-based validation to remove outdated, malformed, or low-value samples, resulting in 67,910 context-enriched entries. ContextCRBench supports three evaluation scenarios aligned with the review workflow: hunk-level quality assessment, line-level defect localization, and line-level comment generation. Evaluating eight leading LLMs (four closed-source and four open-source) reveals that textual context yields greater performance gains than code context alone, while current LLMs remain far from human-level review ability. Deployed at ByteDance, ContextCRBench drives a self-evolving code review system, improving performance by 61.98% and demonstrating its robustness and industrial utility. https://github.com/kinesiatricssxilm14/ContextCRBench.

Scientific paper evaluation often involves not only assessing a manuscript itself, but also relating it to contemporaneous research and prior literature. However, existing LLM-based methods typically model these signals separately and lack a unified mechanism for aggregating review evidence across papers. We propose GraphReview, a graph-based LLM framework that formulates paper evaluation as inference-time graph evidence expansion over a semantic paper graph. The graph jointly captures intrinsic quality, synchronic links among contemporaneous papers, and diachronic links to prior work. LLMs are used to estimate node-level quality priors and generate edge-level comparative evidence through pairwise paper comparisons, while Personalized PageRank integrates these structured signals for quality ranking, decision prediction, and review generation. To produce higher-quality graph evidence, we propose reward-induced maximum likelihood objectives for training the LLM backbones. Experiments show that GraphReview consistently outperforms the strongest baseline, achieving average improvements of 29.7% on decision and ranking metrics, including gains of 23.7% in Accuracy and 57.6% in Spearman's ρ. It also produces higher-quality review texts and generalizes effectively across time periods and conference venues.

Existing approaches for digital short-drama production typically rely on one-shot LLM generated scripts and loosely coupled pipelines, which fail to satisfy three key requirements of short-drama generation: (1) narrative pacing, resulting in weak hooks, insufficient escalation, and unattractive endings; (2) spatial consistency, leading to drifting scene layouts and inconsistent character positions across clips; and (3) production-level quality control, requiring extensive manual review and correction across script and visual stages. We present One Sentence, One Drama, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that transforms a user's single-sentence idea into a fully produced short drama through structured intermediate modules and iterative refinement. Our approach is built upon three key components: (1) a multi-agent debate-based story generation module that enforces short-drama pacing and narrative coherence; (2) a 3D-grounded first-frame generation mechanism that establishes a shared spatial reference for consistent character positioning and scene layout across clips; and (3) multi-stage reviewer loops that perform comprehensive error detection and targeted revision across script, visual, and video generation stages. We also introduce scene-level BGM matching and scene transition planning to improve the audience's immersive experience. To systematically evaluate this task, we introduce Short-Drama-Bench, a benchmark that extends standard video quality metrics with short-drama-specific criteria. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms existing pipelines in narrative quality, cross-clip consistency, and overall viewing experience.

High-quality evaluation benchmarks are pivotal for deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in Automated Code Review (ACR). However, existing benchmarks suffer from two critical limitations: first, the lack of multi-language support in repository-level contexts, which restricts the generalizability of evaluation results; second, the reliance on noisy, incomplete ground truth derived from raw Pull Request (PR) comments, which constrains the scope of issue detection. To address these challenges, we introduce AACR-Bench a comprehensive benchmark that provides full cross-file context across multiple programming languages. Unlike traditional datasets, AACR-Bench employs an "AI-assisted, Expert-verified" annotation pipeline to uncover latent defects often overlooked in original PRs, resulting in a 285% increase in defect coverage. Extensive evaluations of mainstream LLMs on AACR-Bench reveal that previous assessments may have either misjudged or only partially captured model capabilities due to data limitations. Our work establishes a more rigorous standard for ACR evaluation and offers new insights on LLM based ACR, i.e., the granularity/level of context and the choice of retrieval methods significantly impact ACR performance, and this influence varies depending on the LLM, programming language, and the LLM usage paradigm e.g., whether an Agent architecture is employed. The code, data, and other artifacts of our evaluation set are available at https://github.com/alibaba/aacr-bench .

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.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) spend substantial test-time compute on long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, but what *characterizes* an effective CoT remains unclear. While prior work reports gains from lengthening CoTs and increasing review (revisiting earlier steps) via appended *wait* tokens, recent studies suggest that shorter thinking can outperform longer traces. We therefore conduct a systematic evaluation across ten LRMs on math and scientific reasoning. Contrary to the "longer-is-better" narrative, we find that both naive CoT lengthening and increased review are associated with *lower* accuracy. As CoT unfolds step by step, token-level metrics can conflate verbosity with process quality. We introduce a graph view of CoT to extract structure and identify a single statistic-the *Failed-Step Fraction (FSF)*, the fraction of steps in abandoned branches-that consistently outpredicts length and review ratio for correctness across models. To probe causality, we design two interventions. First, we rank candidate CoTs by each metric at test time, where FSF yields the largest pass@1 gains; second, we edit CoTs to remove failed branches, which significantly improves accuracy, indicating that failed branches bias subsequent reasoning. Taken together, these results characterize effective CoTs as those that *fail less* and support *structure-aware* test-time scaling over indiscriminately generating long CoT.

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.

Peer review underpins scientific progress, but it is increasingly strained by reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews now, but determining whether LLM-generated reviews are trustworthy requires systematic evaluation. Researchers have evaluated LLM reviews at either surface-level (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or content-level (e.g., specificity and factual accuracy). Yet it remains uncertain whether LLM-generated reviews attend to the same critical facets that human experts weigh -- the strengths and weaknesses that ultimately drive an accept-or-reject decision. We introduce a focus-level evaluation framework that operationalizes the focus as a normalized distribution of attention across predefined facets in paper reviews. Based on the framework, we developed an automatic focus-level evaluation pipeline based on two sets of facets: target (e.g., problem, method, and experiment) and aspect (e.g., validity, clarity, and novelty), leveraging 676 paper reviews (https://figshare.com/s/d5adf26c802527dd0f62) from OpenReview that consists of 3,657 strengths and weaknesses identified from human experts. The comparison of focus distributions between LLMs and human experts showed that the off-the-shelf LLMs consistently have a more biased focus towards examining technical validity while significantly overlooking novelty assessment when criticizing papers.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Scientific literature review generation aims to extract and organize important information from an abundant collection of reference papers and produces corresponding reviews while lacking a clear and logical hierarchy. We observe that a high-quality catalogue-guided generation process can effectively alleviate this problem. Therefore, we present an atomic and challenging task named Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review as the first step for review generation, which aims to produce a hierarchical catalogue of a review paper given various references. We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews Dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.Our extensive analyses verify the high quality of our dataset and the effectiveness of our evaluation metrics. We further benchmark diverse experiments on state-of-the-art summarization models like BART and large language models like ChatGPT to evaluate their capabilities. We further discuss potential directions for this task to motivate future research.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/.

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.

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.

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.

Literature research, vital for scientific work, faces the challenge of the surging torrent of information in the vast ocean of literature exceeding researchers' processing capabilities. To address this issue, we present an automated review generation method based on Large Language Models (LLMs), aimed at overcoming efficiency bottlenecks in literature processing and reducing cognitive load. Our statistically validated evaluation framework demonstrates that the generated reviews match or exceed manual quality, offering broad applicability across research fields due to minimal domain knowledge requirements. In a case study on propane dehydrogenation (PDH) catalysts, our method swiftly analyzed 343 articles, averaging seconds per article per LLM account, producing comprehensive reviews spanning 35 topics. Extended analysis of 1041 articles provided deep insights into catalysts' composition, structure, and performance. Recognizing LLMs' hallucinations, we implemented a multi-layered quality control strategy, effectively mitigating risks and ensuring reliability, as quantitatively demonstrated through manual verification. Expert verification confirms the accuracy and citation integrity of generated reviews, demonstrating LLM hallucination risks reduced to below 0.5\% with over 95\% confidence. Released Windows application enables one-click review generation, aiding researchers in tracking advancements and recommending literature. This approach showcases LLMs' role in enhancing scientific research productivity and sets the stage for further exploration.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8\% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview{Code}.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While sentiment analysis has become an established field in the NLP community, research into languages other than English has been hindered by the lack of resources. Although much research in multi-lingual and cross-lingual sentiment analysis has focused on unsupervised or semi-supervised approaches, these still require a large number of resources and do not reach the performance of supervised approaches. With this in mind, we introduce two datasets for supervised aspect-level sentiment analysis in Basque and Catalan, both of which are under-resourced languages. We provide high-quality annotations and benchmarks with the hope that they will be useful to the growing community of researchers working on these languages.

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.

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.

Selecting high-quality pre-training data is important for creating capable language models, but existing methods rely on simple heuristics. We introduce QuRating, a method for selecting pre-training data that captures the abstract qualities of texts which humans intuitively perceive. In this paper, we investigate four qualities - writing style, required expertise, facts & trivia, and educational value. We find that LLMs are able to discern these qualities and observe that they are better at making pairwise judgments of texts than at rating the quality of a text directly. We train a QuRater model to learn scalar ratings from pairwise judgments, and use it to annotate a 260B training corpus with quality ratings for each of the four criteria. In our experiments, we select 30B tokens according to the different quality ratings and train 1.3B-parameter language models on the selected data. We find that it is important to balance quality and diversity, as selecting only the highest-rated documents leads to poor results. When we sample using quality ratings as logits over documents, our models achieve lower perplexity and stronger in-context learning performance than baselines. Beyond data selection, we use the quality ratings to construct a training curriculum which improves performance without changing the training dataset. We extensively analyze the quality ratings and discuss their characteristics, biases, and wider implications.

Generating a review for an academic research paper is a complex task that requires a deep understanding of the document's content and the interdependencies between its sections. It demands not only insight into technical details but also an appreciation of the paper's overall coherence and structure. Recent methods have predominantly focused on fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to address this challenge. However, they often overlook the computational and performance limitations imposed by long input token lengths. To address this, we introduce AutoRev, an Automatic Peer Review System for Academic Research Papers. Our novel framework represents an academic document as a graph, enabling the extraction of the most critical passages that contribute significantly to the review. This graph-based approach demonstrates effectiveness for review generation and is potentially adaptable to various downstream tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and document representation. When applied to review generation, our method outperforms SOTA baselines by an average of 58.72% across all evaluation metrics. We hope that our work will stimulate further research in applying graph-based extraction techniques to other downstream tasks in NLP. We plan to make our code public upon acceptance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rapid advancement of Generative AI has raised significant questions regarding its ability to produce creative and novel outputs. Our recent work investigates this question within the domain of chess puzzles and presents an AI system designed to generate puzzles characterized by aesthetic appeal, novelty, counter-intuitive and unique solutions. We briefly discuss our method below and refer the reader to the technical paper for more details. To assess our system's creativity, we presented a curated booklet of AI-generated puzzles to three world-renowned experts: International Master for chess compositions Amatzia Avni, Grandmaster Jonathan Levitt, and Grandmaster Matthew Sadler. All three are noted authors on chess aesthetics and the evolving role of computers in the game. They were asked to select their favorites and explain what made them appealing, considering qualities such as their creativity, level of challenge, or aesthetic design.

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)

While user-generated product reviews often contain large quantities of information, their utility in addressing natural language product queries has been limited, with a key challenge being the need to aggregate information from multiple low-level sources (reviews) to a higher item level during retrieval. Existing methods for reviewed-item retrieval (RIR) typically take a late fusion (LF) approach which computes query-item scores by simply averaging the top-K query-review similarity scores for an item. However, we demonstrate that for multi-aspect queries and multi-aspect items, LF is highly sensitive to the distribution of aspects covered by reviews in terms of aspect frequency and the degree of aspect separation across reviews. To address these LF failures, we propose several novel aspect fusion (AF) strategies which include Large Language Model (LLM) query extraction and generative reranking. Our experiments show that for imbalanced review corpora, AF can improve over LF by a MAP@10 increase from 0.36 to 0.52, while achieving equivalent performance for balanced review corpora.

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.

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.

Existing conversational recommendation (CR) systems usually suffer from insufficient item information when conducted on short dialogue history and unfamiliar items. Incorporating external information (e.g., reviews) is a potential solution to alleviate this problem. Given that reviews often provide a rich and detailed user experience on different interests, they are potential ideal resources for providing high-quality recommendations within an informative conversation. In this paper, we design a novel end-to-end framework, namely, Review-augmented Conversational Recommender (RevCore), where reviews are seamlessly incorporated to enrich item information and assist in generating both coherent and informative responses. In detail, we extract sentiment-consistent reviews, perform review-enriched and entity-based recommendations for item suggestions, as well as use a review-attentive encoder-decoder for response generation. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our approach in yielding better performance on both recommendation and conversation responding.

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.

AI-generated text is proliferating across domains, from creative writing and journalism to marketing content and scientific articles. Models can follow user-provided instructions to generate coherent and grammatically correct outputs but in this work, we study a more fundamental question: how do we evaluate and improve the writing quality of AI-generated text? Writing quality assessment has received less attention from the community, in part because it is fundamentally subjective and requires expertise. We first introduce the Writing Quality Benchmark (WQ) by consolidating five writing-preference datasets into 4,729 writing quality judgments. Our experiments show that most of the competitive baselines, including state-of-the-art LLMs that excel at reasoning tasks, barely outperform random baselines on WQ. We then train specialized Writing Quality Reward Models (WQRM) of various sizes for writing quality assessment that demonstrate strong generalization on four out-of-distribution test sets and 74% accuracy on the WQ benchmark. To further show WQRM's practical benefits during inference, we leverage additional test-time compute to generate and rank multiple candidate revisions, allowing us to select higher-quality outputs from an initial draft. Human evaluation with 9 experienced writers confirm that WQRM-based selection produces writing samples preferred by experts 66% overall, and 72.2% when the reward gap is larger than 1 point. We release our datasets and models to encourage community engagement with writing quality assessment and development of AI writing systems better aligned with human preferences.

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.

Online reviews play a pivotal role in influencing consumer decisions across various domains, from purchasing products to selecting hotels or restaurants. However, the sheer volume of reviews -- often containing repetitive or irrelevant content -- leads to information overload, making it challenging for users to extract meaningful insights. Traditional opinion summarization models face challenges in handling long inputs and large volumes of reviews, while newer Large Language Model (LLM) approaches often fail to generate accurate and faithful summaries. To address those challenges, this paper introduces (1) a new dataset of long-form user reviews, each entity comprising over a thousand reviews, (2) two training-free LLM-based summarization approaches that scale to long inputs, and (3) automatic evaluation metrics. Our dataset of user reviews is paired with in-depth and unbiased critical summaries by domain experts, serving as a reference for evaluation. Additionally, our novel reference-free evaluation metrics provide a more granular, context-sensitive assessment of summary faithfulness. We benchmark several open-source and closed-source LLMs using our methods. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs still face challenges in balancing sentiment and format adherence in long-form summaries, though open-source models can narrow the gap when relevant information is retrieved in a focused manner.

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.

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.

In realistic retrieval settings with large and evolving knowledge bases, the total number of documents relevant to a query is typically unknown, and recall cannot be computed. In this paper, we evaluate several established strategies for handling this limitation by measuring the correlation between retrieval quality metrics and LLM-based judgments of response quality, where responses are generated from the retrieved documents. We conduct experiments across multiple datasets with a relatively low number of relevant documents (2-15). We also introduce a simple retrieval quality measure that performs well without requiring knowledge of the total number of relevant documents.

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.

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.

This study presents a comparative analysis of 55 Wikipedia language editions employing a citation index alongside a synthetic quality measure. Specifically, we identified the most significant Wikipedia articles within distinct topical areas, selecting the top 10, top 25, and top 100 most cited articles in each topic and language version. This index was built on the basis of wikilinks between Wikipedia articles in each language version and in order to do that we processed 6.6 billion page-to-page link records. Next, we used a quality score for each Wikipedia article - a synthetic measure scaled from 0 to 100. This approach enabled quality comparison of Wikipedia articles even between language versions with different quality grading schemes. Our results highlight disparities among Wikipedia language editions, revealing strengths and gaps in content coverage and quality across topics.

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) promise more effective information extraction for review-based recommender systems, yet current methods still (i) mine free-form reviews without scope control, producing redundant and noisy representations, (ii) lack principled metrics that link LLM hallucination to downstream effectiveness, and (iii) leave the cost-quality trade-off across model scales largely unexplored. We address these gaps with the Hyper-Adaptive Dual-Stage Semantic Framework (HADSF), a two-stage approach that first induces a compact, corpus-level aspect vocabulary via adaptive selection and then performs vocabulary-guided, explicitly constrained extraction of structured aspect-opinion triples. To assess the fidelity of the resulting representations, we introduce Aspect Drift Rate (ADR) and Opinion Fidelity Rate (OFR) and empirically uncover a nonmonotonic relationship between hallucination severity and rating prediction error. Experiments on approximately 3 million reviews across LLMs spanning 1.5B-70B parameters show that, when integrated into standard rating predictors, HADSF yields consistent reductions in prediction error and enables smaller models to achieve competitive performance in representative deployment scenarios. We release code, data pipelines, and metric implementations to support reproducible research on hallucination-aware, LLM-enhanced explainable recommendation. Code is available at https://github.com/niez233/HADSF

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.

ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this decision was not accompanied by quantitative evidence. In this work, we investigate this claim by measuring the proportion of LLM-generated content in review vs. non-review research papers in recent years. Using two high-quality detection methods, we find a substantial increase in LLM-generated content across both review and non-review papers, with a higher prevalence in review papers. However, when considering the number of LLM-generated papers published in each category, the estimates of non-review LLM-generated papers are almost six times higher. Furthermore, we find that this policy will affect papers in certain domains far more than others, with the CS subdiscipline Computers & Society potentially facing cuts of 50%. Our analysis provides an evidence-based framework for evaluating such policy decisions, and we release our code to facilitate future investigations at: https://github.com/yanaiela/llm-review-arxiv.

In the hospitality industry, understanding the factors that drive customer review ratings is critical for improving guest satisfaction and business performance. This work proposes ReviewGraph for Review Rating Prediction (RRP), a novel framework that transforms textual customer reviews into knowledge graphs by extracting (subject, predicate, object) triples and associating sentiment scores. Using graph embeddings (Node2Vec) and sentiment features, the framework predicts review rating scores through machine learning classifiers. We compare ReviewGraph performance with traditional NLP baselines (such as Bag of Words, TF-IDF, and Word2Vec) and large language models (LLMs), evaluating them in the HotelRec dataset. In comparison to the state of the art literature, our proposed model performs similar to their best performing model but with lower computational cost (without ensemble). While ReviewGraph achieves comparable predictive performance to LLMs and outperforms baselines on agreement-based metrics such as Cohen's Kappa, it offers additional advantages in interpretability, visual exploration, and potential integration into Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. This work highlights the potential of graph-based representations for enhancing review analytics and lays the groundwork for future research integrating advanced graph neural networks and fine-tuned LLM-based extraction methods. We will share ReviewGraph output and platform open-sourced on our GitHub page https://github.com/aaronlifenghan/ReviewGraph

In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated scientific reviewing, their generated contents are often generic or partial. To address the issues above, we introduce an automated paper reviewing framework SEA. It comprises of three modules: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis, which are represented by models SEA-S, SEA-E, and SEA-A, respectively. Initially, SEA-S distills data standardization capabilities of GPT-4 for integrating multiple reviews for a paper. Then, SEA-E utilizes standardized data for fine-tuning, enabling it to generate constructive reviews. Finally, SEA-A introduces a new evaluation metric called mismatch score to assess the consistency between paper contents and reviews. Moreover, we design a self-correction strategy to enhance the consistency. Extensive experimental results on datasets collected from eight venues show that SEA can generate valuable insights for authors to improve their papers.

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.

Literature reviews are an essential component of scientific research, but they remain time-intensive and challenging to write, especially due to the recent influx of research papers. This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract. We decompose the task into two components: 1. Retrieving related works given a query abstract, and 2. Writing a literature review based on the retrieved results. We analyze how effective LLMs are for both components. For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper and then retrieves potentially relevant papers by querying an external knowledge base. Additionally, we study a prompting-based re-ranking mechanism with attribution and show that re-ranking doubles the normalized recall compared to naive search methods, while providing insights into the LLM's decision-making process. In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review. To evaluate different LLM-based literature review methods, we create test sets from arXiv papers using a protocol designed for rolling use with newly released LLMs to avoid test set contamination in zero-shot evaluations. We release this evaluation protocol to promote additional research and development in this regard. Our empirical results suggest that LLMs show promising potential for writing literature reviews when the task is decomposed into smaller components of retrieval and planning. Our project page including a demonstration system and toolkit can be accessed here: https://litllm.github.io.

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.

Coding agents increasingly generate pull requests (PRs) for real-world software issues, yet one-shot PR generation remains open-loop: the PR is proposed without systematic review, diagnosis, or revision. We introduce SWE-Review, a framework for closing this loop with agentic code review. Given an issue and an AI-generated PR, a reviewer agent explores the repository, decides whether the PR should be accepted, and provides structured feedback for revision. We evaluate this setting with our proposed SWE-Review-Bench to measure both review correctness and downstream revision usefulness. We further curate SWE-Review-Traj dataset to study broader applications of agentic review and fill the data-scarcity gap for open reviewer training. Experiments show that agentic review continuously improves PRs through a generate-review-revise loop, outperforms single-turn fixed-context review in both decision accuracy and resolve rate after revision, transfers beyond review to improve issue-resolution models, and enables effective and efficient test-time scaling. These results position agentic code review as a practical mechanism for moving AI coding agents from one-shot PR generation toward closed-loop issue resolution.

Word-level quality estimation (QE) detects erroneous spans in machine translations, which can direct and facilitate human post-editing. While the accuracy of word-level QE systems has been assessed extensively, their usability and downstream influence on the speed, quality and editing choices of human post-editing remain understudied. Our QE4PE study investigates the impact of word-level QE on machine translation (MT) post-editing in a realistic setting involving 42 professional post-editors across two translation directions. We compare four error-span highlight modalities, including supervised and uncertainty-based word-level QE methods, for identifying potential errors in the outputs of a state-of-the-art neural MT model. Post-editing effort and productivity are estimated by behavioral logs, while quality improvements are assessed by word- and segment-level human annotation. We find that domain, language and editors' speed are critical factors in determining highlights' effectiveness, with modest differences between human-made and automated QE highlights underlining a gap between accuracy and usability in professional workflows.

Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study this important artifact. The dataset consists of 14.7K paper drafts and the corresponding accept/reject decisions in top-tier venues including ACL, NIPS and ICLR. The dataset also includes 10.7K textual peer reviews written by experts for a subset of the papers. We describe the data collection process and report interesting observed phenomena in the peer reviews. We also propose two novel NLP tasks based on this dataset and provide simple baseline models. In the first task, we show that simple models can predict whether a paper is accepted with up to 21% error reduction compared to the majority baseline. In the second task, we predict the numerical scores of review aspects and show that simple models can outperform the mean baseline for aspects with high variance such as 'originality' and 'impact'.

Large language models can generate plausible code-review comments, but such comments may contain technically incorrect claims that mislead developers. We study technical trustworthiness judgment: determining whether a review comment's core technical claims are correct and applicable to the reviewed code in its repository context. Existing code-review benchmarks primarily evaluate review generation, issue discovery, or general comment quality, but do not directly assess whether an agent can determine the technical trustworthy of an individual review comment. To fill this gap, we introduce CRJudgeBench, a benchmark of 1199 instances constructed from real pull requests and expert-verified perturbations, covering both trustworthy and plausible but untrustworthy comments. We further present Sentinel, a repository-grounded agentic judge that actively gathers code evidence to verify review comments before making judgments. Starting from Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct, Sentinel is trained on the CRJudgeBench training split through iterative action-level learning from a privileged teacher. On the 359-instance CRJudgeBench test set, Sentinel achieves 76.60\% accuracy, outperforming GLM-5.3 by 6.13 percentage points and its base model by 19.78 points. These results show that even state-of-the-art general-purpose LLMs struggle to identify untrustworthy comments, while iterative action-level learning substantially improves the accuracy of repository-grounded trustworthiness judgments. Our dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/dcloud347/CRJudgeBenchmark

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.

Automatic survey generation has emerged as a key task in scientific document processing. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating survey texts, the lack of standardized evaluation datasets critically hampers rigorous assessment of their performance against human-written surveys. In this work, we present SurveyGen, a large-scale dataset comprising over 4,200 human-written surveys across diverse scientific domains, along with 242,143 cited references and extensive quality-related metadata for both the surveys and the cited papers. Leveraging this resource, we build QUAL-SG, a novel quality-aware framework for survey generation that enhances the standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline by incorporating quality-aware indicators into literature retrieval to assess and select higher-quality source papers. Using this dataset and framework, we systematically evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs under varying levels of human involvement - from fully automatic generation to human-guided writing. Experimental results and human evaluations show that while semi-automatic pipelines can achieve partially competitive outcomes, fully automatic survey generation still suffers from low citation quality and limited critical analysis.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

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.

Recently, recommender systems have been able to emit substantially improved recommendations by leveraging user-provided reviews. Existing methods typically merge all reviews of a given user or item into a long document, and then process user and item documents in the same manner. In practice, however, these two sets of reviews are notably different: users' reviews reflect a variety of items that they have bought and are hence very heterogeneous in their topics, while an item's reviews pertain only to that single item and are thus topically homogeneous. In this work, we develop a novel neural network model that properly accounts for this important difference by means of asymmetric attentive modules. The user module learns to attend to only those signals that are relevant with respect to the target item, whereas the item module learns to extract the most salient contents with regard to properties of the item. Our multi-hierarchical paradigm accounts for the fact that neither are all reviews equally useful, nor are all sentences within each review equally pertinent. Extensive experimental results on a variety of real datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

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.

We present TransEvalnia, a prompting-based translation evaluation and ranking system that uses reasoning in performing its evaluations and ranking. This system presents fine-grained evaluations based on a subset of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (https://themqm.org/), returns an assessment of which translation it deems the best, and provides numerical scores for the various dimensions and for the overall translation. We show that TransEvalnia performs as well as or better than the state-of-the-art MT-Ranker (Moosa et al. 2024) on our own English-Japanese data as well as several language pairs from various WMT shared tasks. Using Anthropic's Claude-3.5-Sonnet and Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct as the evaluation LLMs, we show that the evaluations returned are deemed highly acceptable to human raters, and that the scores assigned to the translations by Sonnet, as well as other LLMs, correlate well with scores assigned by the human raters. We also note the sensitivity of our system -- as well as MT-Ranker -- to the order in which the translations are presented, and we propose methods to address this position bias. All data, including the system's evaluation and reasoning, human assessments, as well as code is released.

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.

There are a few prominent practices for conducting reviews of academic literature, including searching for specific keywords on Google Scholar or checking citations from some initial seed paper(s). These approaches serve a critical purpose for academic literature reviews, yet there remain challenges in identifying relevant literature when similar work may utilize different terminology (e.g., mixed-initiative visual analytics papers may not use the same terminology as papers on model-steering, yet the two topics are relevant to one another). In this paper, we introduce a system, VitaLITy, intended to complement existing practices. In particular, VitaLITy promotes serendipitous discovery of relevant literature using transformer language models, allowing users to find semantically similar papers in a word embedding space given (1) a list of input paper(s) or (2) a working abstract. VitaLITy visualizes this document-level embedding space in an interactive 2-D scatterplot using dimension reduction. VitaLITy also summarizes meta information about the document corpus or search query, including keywords and co-authors, and allows users to save and export papers for use in a literature review. We present qualitative findings from an evaluation of VitaLITy, suggesting it can be a promising complementary technique for conducting academic literature reviews. Furthermore, we contribute data from 38 popular data visualization publication venues in VitaLITy, and we provide scrapers for the open-source community to continue to grow the list of supported venues.

Automated peer review has evolved from simple text classification to structured feedback generation. However, current state-of-the-art systems still struggle with "surface-level" critiques: they excel at summarizing content but often fail to accurately assess novelty and significance or identify deep methodological flaws because they evaluate papers in a vacuum, lacking the external context a human expert possesses. In this paper, we introduce ScholarPeer, a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher. ScholarPeer employs a dual-stream process of context acquisition and active verification. It dynamically constructs a domain narrative using a historian agent, identifies missing comparisons via a baseline scout, and verifies claims through a multi-aspect Q&A engine, grounding the critique in live web-scale literature. We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations and reduces the gap to human-level diversity.

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.

As large-language models have been increasingly used as automatic raters for evaluating free-form content, including document summarization, dialog, and story generation, work has been dedicated to evaluating such models by measuring their correlations with human judgment. For sample-level performance, methods which operate by using pairwise comparisons between machine-generated text perform well but often lack the ability to assign absolute scores to individual summaries, an ability crucial for use cases that require thresholding. In this work, we propose a direct-scoring method which uses synthetic summaries to act as pairwise machine rankings at test time. We show that our method performs comparably to state-of-the-art pairwise evaluators in terms of axis-averaged sample-level correlations on the SummEval (+0.03), TopicalChat (-0.03), and HANNA (+0.05) meta-evaluation benchmarks, and release the synthetic in-context summaries as data to facilitate future work.

The International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) is the premier international conference in the area of neural networks theory, analysis, and applications. The 2025 edition of the conference comprised 5,526 paper submissions, 7,877 active reviewers, 426 area chairs, 2,152 accepted papers, and more than 2,300 attendees. This represents a growth of about 100% in terms of submissions, 200% in terms of reviewers, and over 50% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous edition. In this paper, we describe several key aspects of the whole review process, including a strategy for ranking the scores provided by the reviewers by evaluating a score index and a calibrated version used experimentally to remove reviewer-specific bias from reviews.

Deep research requires models to retrieve, connect, and synthesize evidence from large-scale heterogeneous sources to answer complex queries and produce analytical reports. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outcomes, such as answer correctness, report quality, or citation alignment, while providing limited visibility into whether evidence is correctly selected, linked, and aggregated into supported claims and conclusions. To address this gap, we introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research. HiEviDR-Bench covers open-domain and academic-domain settings under both text-only and multimodal conditions, and represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation from evidence to intermediate claims and final conclusions. Based on this formulation, we develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness, together with a progressive gating mechanism for fine-grained error localization. HiEviDR-Bench contains 2,000 human-validated questions with evidence graphs across multiple difficulty levels. Experiments on 16 representative multimodal large language models show that, although many systems achieve strong report quality, their performance drops markedly on citation accuracy, claim construction, and answer correctness. Further analysis shows that the main bottlenecks lie in evidence identification and intermediate claim construction, revealing that strong surface-level report quality does not necessarily imply grounded multi-stage reasoning on our benchmark.

Word-level quality estimation (WQE) aims to automatically identify fine-grained error spans in machine-translated outputs and has found many uses, including assisting translators during post-editing. Modern WQE techniques are often expensive, involving prompting of large language models or ad-hoc training on large amounts of human-labeled data. In this work, we investigate efficient alternatives exploiting recent advances in language model interpretability and uncertainty quantification to identify translation errors from the inner workings of translation models. In our evaluation spanning 14 metrics across 12 translation directions, we quantify the impact of human label variation on metric performance by using multiple sets of human labels. Our results highlight the untapped potential of unsupervised metrics, the shortcomings of supervised methods when faced with label uncertainty, and the brittleness of single-annotator evaluation practices.

Many computer scientists use the aggregated answers of online workers to represent ground truth. Prior work has shown that aggregation methods such as majority voting are effective for measuring relatively objective features. For subjective features such as semantic connotation, online workers, known for optimizing their hourly earnings, tend to deteriorate in the quality of their responses as they work longer. In this paper, we aim to address this issue by proposing a quality-aware semantic data annotation system. We observe that with timely feedback on workers' performance quantified by quality scores, better informed online workers can maintain the quality of their labeling throughout an extended period of time. We validate the effectiveness of the proposed annotation system through i) evaluating performance based on an expert-labeled dataset, and ii) demonstrating machine learning tasks that can lead to consistent learning behavior with 70%-80% accuracy. Our results suggest that with our system, researchers can collect high-quality answers of subjective semantic features at a large scale.

Automated code review (CR) is a key application for Large Language Models (LLMs), but progress is hampered by a "reality gap": existing benchmarks evaluate models on isolated sub-tasks using simplified, context-poor data. This fails to reflect the holistic context-rich nature of real-world CR. To bridge this gap, we introduce CodeFuse-CR-Bench, the first comprehensiveness-aware benchmark for repository-level CR evaluation. CodeFuse-CR-Bench comprises 601 high-quality instances from 70 Python projects covering nine Pull-Request (PR) problem domains, where each instance provides rich, multi-faceted context including the associated issue, PR details, and repository state, enabling end-to-end evaluation. Beyond superficial metrics, we also propose a novel evaluation framework that combines rule-based checks for location and syntax with model-based judgments of review quality. We present the first large-scale assessment of state-of-the-art LLMs on this comprehensive CR task. Our results establish crucial baselines and reveal that (1) no single LLM dominates all aspects of CR; (2) Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves the highest comprehensive performance; and (3) different LLMs exhibit varying robustness to redundant context. These findings highlight the necessity of holistic, multi-dimensional evaluation and provide actionable insights for advancing truly intelligent yet practical CR assistants.

Evaluating text revision in scientific writing remains a challenge, as traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements. In this work, we analyse and identify the limitations of these metrics and explore alternative evaluation methods that better align with human judgments. We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions. Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains. Additionally, we examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches, analysing their ability to assess revisions with and without a gold reference. Our results show that LLMs effectively assess instruction-following but struggle with correctness, while domain-specific metrics provide complementary insights. We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.

Measuring the quality of responses generated by LLMs is a challenging task, particularly when it comes to evaluating whether the response is aligned with human preference. A novel approach involves using the LLM itself to make evaluation and stabilizing the results through multiple independent evaluations, similar to a single-layer narrow LLM network. This network consists of a fixed number of neurons, with each neuron being the same LLM. In this paper, we draw upon the extensive research on deep neural networks to explore whether deeper and wider networks can lead to fairer evaluations. Specifically, inspired by the observation that different neurons in a neural network are responsible for detecting different concepts, we first adaptively generate as many neuron roles as possible for each evaluation sample. Each perspective corresponds to the role of a specific LLM neuron in the first layer. In subsequent layers, we follow the idea that higher layers in deep networks are responsible for more comprehensive features, each layer receives representations from all neurons in the previous layer, integrating the locally learned evaluation information to obtain a more comprehensive evaluation result. Interestingly, this network design resembles the process of academic paper reviewing. To validate the effectiveness of our method, we construct the largest and most diverse English evaluation benchmark LLMEval^2 for LLM evaluators, comprising 15 tasks, 8 abilities, and 2,553 samples. Experimental results demonstrate that a wider network (involving many reviewers) with 2 layers (one round of discussion) performs the best, improving kappa correlation coefficient from 0.28 to 0.34. We also leverage WideDeep to aid in the assessment of Chinese LLMs, which has accelerated the evaluation time by 4.6 times, resulting in a 60% cost saving. WideDeep achieves a remarkable 93% agreement level among humans.

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.

Current opinion summarization systems simply generate summaries reflecting important opinions from customer reviews, but the generated summaries may not attract the reader's attention. Although it is helpful to automatically generate professional reviewer-like summaries from customer reviews, collecting many training pairs of customer and professional reviews is generally tricky. We propose a weakly supervised opinion summarization framework, Noisy Pairing and Partial Supervision (NAPA) that can build a stylized opinion summarization system with no customer-professional review pairs. Experimental results show consistent improvements in automatic evaluation metrics, and qualitative analysis shows that our weakly supervised opinion summarization system can generate summaries that look more like those written by professional reviewers.

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.

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.

We study the problem of opinion highlights generation from large volumes of user reviews, often exceeding thousands per entity, where existing methods either fail to scale or produce generic, one-size-fits-all summaries that overlook personalized needs. To tackle this, we introduce OpinioRAG, a scalable, training-free framework that combines RAG-based evidence retrieval with LLMs to efficiently produce tailored summaries. Additionally, we propose novel reference-free verification metrics designed for sentiment-rich domains, where accurately capturing opinions and sentiment alignment is essential. These metrics offer a fine-grained, context-sensitive assessment of factual consistency. To facilitate evaluation, we contribute the first large-scale dataset of long-form user reviews, comprising entities with over a thousand reviews each, paired with unbiased expert summaries and manually annotated queries. Through extensive experiments, we identify key challenges, provide actionable insights into improving systems, pave the way for future research, and position OpinioRAG as a robust framework for generating accurate, relevant, and structured summaries at scale.

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.

This position paper argues that Mean Opinion Score (MOS), while historically foundational, is no longer sufficient as the sole supervisory signal for multimedia quality assessment models. MOS reduces rich, context-sensitive human judgments to a single scalar, obscuring semantic failures, user intent, and the rationale behind quality decisions. We contend that modern quality assessment models must integrate three interdependent capabilities: (1) context-awareness, to adapt evaluations to task-specific goals and viewing conditions; (2) reasoning, to produce interpretable, evidence-grounded justifications for quality judgments; and (3) multimodality, to align perceptual and semantic cues using vision-language models. We critique the limitations of current MOS-centric benchmarks and propose a roadmap for reform: richer datasets with contextual metadata and expert rationales, and new evaluation metrics that assess semantic alignment, reasoning fidelity, and contextual sensitivity. By reframing quality assessment as a contextual, explainable, and multimodal modeling task, we aim to catalyze a shift toward more robust, human-aligned, and trustworthy evaluation systems.

Opinion summarization has been traditionally approached with unsupervised, weakly-supervised and few-shot learning techniques. In this work, we collect a large dataset of summaries paired with user reviews for over 31,000 products, enabling supervised training. However, the number of reviews per product is large (320 on average), making summarization - and especially training a summarizer - impractical. Moreover, the content of many reviews is not reflected in the human-written summaries, and, thus, the summarizer trained on random review subsets hallucinates. In order to deal with both of these challenges, we formulate the task as jointly learning to select informative subsets of reviews and summarizing the opinions expressed in these subsets. The choice of the review subset is treated as a latent variable, predicted by a small and simple selector. The subset is then fed into a more powerful summarizer. For joint training, we use amortized variational inference and policy gradient methods. Our experiments demonstrate the importance of selecting informative reviews resulting in improved quality of summaries and reduced hallucinations.

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.

Text-based explainable recommendation aims to generate natural-language explanations that justify item recommendations, to improve user trust and system transparency. Although recent advances leverage LLMs to produce fluent outputs, a critical question remains underexplored: are these explanations factually consistent with the available evidence? We introduce a comprehensive framework for evaluating the factual consistency of text-based explainable recommenders. We design a prompting-based pipeline that uses LLMs to extract atomic explanatory statements from reviews, thereby constructing a ground truth that isolates and focuses on their factual content. Applying this pipeline to five categories from the Amazon Reviews dataset, we create augmented benchmarks for fine-grained evaluation of explanation quality. We further propose statement-level alignment metrics that combine LLM- and NLI-based approaches to assess both factual consistency and relevance of generated explanations. Across extensive experiments on six state-of-the-art explainable recommendation models, we uncover a critical gap: while models achieve high semantic similarity scores (BERTScore F1: 0.81-0.90), all our factuality metrics reveal alarmingly low performance (LLM-based statement-level precision: 4.38%-32.88%). These findings underscore the need for factuality-aware evaluation in explainable recommendation and provide a foundation for developing more trustworthy explanation systems.

Automatic evaluation of long-form literary writing remains challenging, as generic LLM-as-Judge approaches may not fully capture creativity-related dimensions such as originality and flexibility. Although the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) provides a structured creativity framework, and prior work has demonstrated reference-based TTCW evaluation at the pairwise level, no large-scale dataset exists for long-form TTCW-based literary review generation. We address this gap by constructing a dataset of 263,911 long-form stories, each annotated with scalar scores and meta-synthesised review comments across 14 TTCW-based dimensions. Using this dataset, we fine-tune Qwen3 models at two scales, 4B and 8B, under two conditions: with and without reasoning content. Results show that non-reasoning fine-tuning achieves stronger and more stable performance, with the best setting reaching an evaluation score of 0.6820. Further analysis shows that reasoning-supervised models are more prone to parse failures, often continuing with irrelevant or repetitive reasoning-style text rather than completing the required 14-metric review report. These results suggest that, for fixed-format rubric-based review generation, reasoning supervision is not straightforwardly beneficial, and precise metric-aligned scoring remains challenging even after task-specific fine-tuning.

Online reviews in the form of user-generated content (UGC) significantly impact consumer decision-making. However, the pervasive issue of not only human fake content but also machine-generated content challenges UGC's reliability. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) may pave the way to fabricate indistinguishable fake generated content at a much lower cost. Leveraging OpenAI's GPT-4-Turbo and DALL-E-2 models, we craft AiGen-FoodReview, a multi-modal dataset of 20,144 restaurant review-image pairs divided into authentic and machine-generated. We explore unimodal and multimodal detection models, achieving 99.80% multimodal accuracy with FLAVA. We use attributes from readability and photographic theories to score reviews and images, respectively, demonstrating their utility as hand-crafted features in scalable and interpretable detection models, with comparable performance. The paper contributes by open-sourcing the dataset and releasing fake review detectors, recommending its use in unimodal and multimodal fake review detection tasks, and evaluating linguistic and visual features in synthetic versus authentic data.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

In passage reranking, response ranking and multi-document question answering, LLMs can score several candidate documents or responses together in one prompt, each still receiving its own score. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or which chosen/rejected pair enters preference training. Because the candidates share that prompt, reordering them changes their scores. The same query over the same candidates should still yield the same decision. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. No prompt-time change we test resolves that dependence: the only one that improves ranking quality does not measurably improve decision stability. We introduce order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT), which attenuates it in the weights by penalizing disagreement between a candidate's scores across orderings. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks. It is also more stable on 12 base models than order-averaged distillation, which trains on labels averaged across permutations. One OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison of such scorers should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.

Academic survey writing, which distills vast literature into a coherent and insightful narrative, remains a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task. While recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically (a.k.a. LLM4Survey), their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark for thoroughly revealing their deficiencies. To fill the gap, we propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench, featuring (1) typical survey topics source from recent 11,343 arXiv papers and corresponding 4,947 high-quality surveys; (2) a multifaceted metric hierarchy that assesses the outline quality (e.g., coverage breadth, logical coherence), content quality (e.g., synthesis granularity, clarity of insights), and non-textual richness; and (3) a dual-mode evaluation protocol that includes content-based and quiz-based answerability tests, explicitly aligned with readers' informational needs. Results show SurveyBench effectively challenges existing LLM4Survey approaches (e.g., on average 21% lower than human in content-based evaluation).

With the rapid and continuous increase in academic publications, identifying high-quality research has become an increasingly pressing challenge. While recent methods leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated paper evaluation have shown great promise, they are often constrained by outdated domain knowledge and limited reasoning capabilities. In this work, we present PaperEval, a novel LLM-based framework for automated paper evaluation that addresses these limitations through two key components: 1) a domain-aware paper retrieval module that retrieves relevant concurrent work to support contextualized assessments of novelty and contributions, and 2) a latent reasoning mechanism that enables deep understanding of complex motivations and methodologies, along with comprehensive comparison against concurrently related work, to support more accurate and reliable evaluation. To guide the reasoning process, we introduce a progressive ranking optimization strategy that encourages the LLM to iteratively refine its predictions with an emphasis on relative comparison. Experiments on two datasets demonstrate that PaperEval consistently outperforms existing methods in both academic impact and paper quality evaluation. In addition, we deploy PaperEval in a real-world paper recommendation system for filtering high-quality papers, which has gained strong engagement on social media -- amassing over 8,000 subscribers and attracting over 10,000 views for many filtered high-quality papers -- demonstrating the practical effectiveness of PaperEval.

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/.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) generate citation-rich reports via multi-step search and synthesis, yet existing benchmarks mainly target text-only settings or short-form multimodal QA, missing end-to-end multimodal evidence use. We introduce MMDeepResearch-Bench (MMDR-Bench), a benchmark of 140 expert-crafted tasks across 21 domains, where each task provides an image-text bundle to evaluate multimodal understanding and citation-grounded report generation. Compared to prior setups, MMDR-Bench emphasizes report-style synthesis with explicit evidence use, where models must connect visual artifacts to sourced claims and maintain consistency across narrative, citations, and visual references. We further propose a unified, interpretable evaluation pipeline: Formula-LLM Adaptive Evaluation (FLAE) for report quality, Trustworthy Retrieval-Aligned Citation Evaluation (TRACE) for citation-grounded evidence alignment, and Multimodal Support-Aligned Integrity Check (MOSAIC) for text-visual integrity, each producing fine-grained signals that support error diagnosis beyond a single overall score. Experiments across 25 state-of-the-art models reveal systematic trade-offs between generation quality, citation discipline, and multimodal grounding, highlighting that strong prose alone does not guarantee faithful evidence use and that multimodal integrity remains a key bottleneck for deep research agents.

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.

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 ...

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.

In this paper, we propose document-level end-to-end sentiment analysis to efficiently understand aspect and review sentiment expressed in online reviews in a unified manner. In particular, we assume that star rating labels are a "coarse-grained synthesis" of aspect ratings across in the review. We propose a Distantly Supervised Pyramid Network (DSPN) to efficiently perform Aspect-Category Detection, Aspect-Category Sentiment Analysis, and Rating Prediction using only document star rating labels for training. By performing these three related sentiment subtasks in an end-to-end manner, DSPN can extract aspects mentioned in the review, identify the corresponding sentiments, and predict the star rating labels. We evaluate DSPN on multi-aspect review datasets in English and Chinese and find that with only star rating labels for supervision, DSPN can perform comparably well to a variety of benchmark models. We also demonstrate the interpretability of DSPN's outputs on reviews to show the pyramid structure inherent in document level end-to-end sentiment analysis.

The advent of Deep Research agents has substantially reduced the time required for conducting extensive research tasks. However, these tasks inherently demand rigorous standards of factual accuracy and comprehensiveness, necessitating thorough evaluation before widespread adoption. In this paper, we propose ReportBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the content quality of research reports generated by large language models (LLMs). Our evaluation focuses on two critical dimensions: (1) the quality and relevance of cited literature, and (2) the faithfulness and veracity of the statements within the generated reports. ReportBench leverages high-quality published survey papers available on arXiv as gold-standard references, from which we apply reverse prompt engineering to derive domain-specific prompts and establish a comprehensive evaluation corpus. Furthermore, we develop an agent-based automated framework within ReportBench that systematically analyzes generated reports by extracting citations and statements, checking the faithfulness of cited content against original sources, and validating non-cited claims using web-based resources. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that commercial Deep Research agents such as those developed by OpenAI and Google consistently generate more comprehensive and reliable reports than standalone LLMs augmented with search or browsing tools. However, there remains substantial room for improvement in terms of the breadth and depth of research coverage, as well as factual consistency. The complete code and data will be released at the following link: https://github.com/ByteDance-BandAI/ReportBench

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus contains various quality sentences. Therefore, Wikipedia includes some poor-quality edits, which are often marked up by other editors. While editors' reviews enhance the credibility of Wikipedia, it is hard to check all edited text. Assisting in this process is very important, but a large and comprehensive dataset for studying it does not currently exist. Here, we propose WikiSQE, the first large-scale dataset for sentence quality estimation in Wikipedia. Each sentence is extracted from the entire revision history of English Wikipedia, and the target quality labels were carefully investigated and selected. WikiSQE has about 3.4 M sentences with 153 quality labels. In the experiment with automatic classification using competitive machine learning models, sentences that had problems with citation, syntax/semantics, or propositions were found to be more difficult to detect. In addition, by performing human annotation, we found that the model we developed performed better than the crowdsourced workers. WikiSQE is expected to be a valuable resource for other tasks in NLP.

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has been proven to play an essential role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, there is a lack of principled understanding in evaluating the quality of the critique itself. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which is a framework to evaluate the critique from two aspects, i.e., factuality as precision score and comprehensiveness as recall score. We calculate the harmonic mean of precision and recall as the overall rating called F1 score. To obtain a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique takes each AIU into account and aggregates each AIU's judgment for the overall score. Moreover, given the evaluation process involves intricate reasoning, our MetaCritique provides a natural language rationale to support each judgment. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset containing 300 critiques (2653 AIUs) across four tasks (question answering, reasoning, entailment, and summarization), and we conduct a comparative study to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness. Experiments also show superior critique judged by MetaCritique leads to better refinement, indicating generative artificial intelligence indeed has the potential to be significantly advanced with our MetaCritique. We will release relevant code and meta-evaluation datasets at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/MetaCritique.

WANDR (Wide ANd Deep Research) is a benchmark of 500 realistic, challenging data-collection tasks for research agents. Each task requires a system to discover a large set of entities that satisfy specified criteria (breadth), investigate each entity through multiple coordinated web searches (depth), and return independently verifiable records with supporting sources and excerpts. Tasks are represented as qualification key hierarchies that specify the entities, relationships, evidence, and required count at each level; a hierarchy with n companies, m employees per company, and k sources per employee requires n x m x k records. This structure supports diverse workflows such as market mapping, due diligence, literature review, product comparison, and talent sourcing, with targets ranging from dozens to thousands of records. WANDR replaces static gold answer sets with task-specific judges that refetch cited pages and verify each record against its evidence, allowing evaluation of current and changing facts. Record verdicts are aggregated into soft and hard precision, recall, and F1 scores that distinguish factual quality, coverage, and hierarchical completeness. The tasks are derived from de-identified product-usage logs and produced through a semi-automated pipeline with automated checks, empirical audits, and human review where needed. We evaluate six production research systems and find that the benchmark is far from saturated: at high effort, the strongest system reaches only 0.363 soft F1 and 0.133 hard F1. Performance degrades as target volume and hierarchy depth increase, with incomplete discovery, missing enrichment, and incomplete evidence construction remaining major bottlenecks. The benchmark and evaluation harness are available at https://github.com/perplexityai/wandr.

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.

Deep research -- producing comprehensive, citation-grounded reports by searching and synthesizing information from hundreds of live web sources -- marks an important frontier for agentic systems. To rigorously evaluate this ability, four principles are essential: tasks should be (1) user-centric, reflecting realistic information needs, (2) dynamic, requiring up-to-date information beyond parametric knowledge, (3) unambiguous, ensuring consistent interpretation across users, and (4) multi-faceted and search-intensive, requiring search over numerous web sources and in-depth analysis. Existing benchmarks fall short of these principles, often focusing on narrow domains or posing ambiguous questions that hinder fair comparison. Guided by these principles, we introduce LiveResearchBench, a benchmark of 100 expert-curated tasks spanning daily life, enterprise, and academia, each requiring extensive, dynamic, real-time web search and synthesis. Built with over 1,500 hours of human labor, LiveResearchBench provides a rigorous basis for systematic evaluation. To evaluate citation-grounded long-form reports, we introduce DeepEval, a comprehensive suite covering both content- and report-level quality, including coverage, presentation, citation accuracy and association, consistency and depth of analysis. DeepEval integrates four complementary evaluation protocols, each designed to ensure stable assessment and high agreement with human judgments. Using LiveResearchBench and DeepEval, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 17 frontier deep research systems, including single-agent web search, single-agent deep research, and multi-agent systems. Our analysis reveals current strengths, recurring failure modes, and key system components needed to advance reliable, insightful deep research.

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.