AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10365v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:10:38 GMT
• Title: AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
• Score: 18.50142644126276
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews to increase sample efficiency while reducing bias. In addition to evaluating human and LLM preferences among LLM reviews, we fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We artificially introduce errors into papers and analyze the LLM's responses to identify limitations, use adaptive review questions, meta prompting, role-playing, integrate visual and textual analysis, use venue-specific reviewing materials, and predict human preferences, improving upon the limitations of the traditional review processes. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality. This work develops proof-of-concept LLM reviewing systems that quickly deliver consistent, high-quality reviews and evaluate their quality. We mitigate the risks of misuse, inflated review scores, overconfident ratings, and skewed score distributions by augmenting the LLM with multiple documents, including the review form, reviewer guide, code of ethics and conduct, area chair guidelines, and previous year statistics, by finding which errors and shortcomings of the paper may be detected by automated reviews, and evaluating pairwise reviewer preferences. This work identifies and addresses the limitations of using LLMs as reviewers and evaluators and enhances the quality of the reviewing process.

Related papers

• ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation [54.82704239643649]
  We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans.<n>Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback.<n>We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:30:16Z)
• Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time [55.756345497678204]
  We introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality.<n>We apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL.<n>We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:48:29Z)
• Reviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback [75.31379834079648]
  We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments.<n>We also release LazyReviewPlus, a dataset of 1,309 sentences labeled for lazy thinking and specificity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T20:32:18Z)
• FeedEval: Pedagogically Aligned Evaluation of LLM-Generated Essay Feedback [6.88204255655161]
  We propose FeedEval, a framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity.<n>Experiments on the ASAP++ benchmark show that FeedEval closely aligns with human expert judgments and that essay scoring models trained with FeedEval-filtered high-quality feedback achieve superior scoring performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T04:04:29Z)
• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review [34.067892820832405]
  This paper presents a systematic evaluation of large language models (LLMs) as academic reviewers.<n>Using a curated dataset of 1,441 papers from ICLR 2023 and NeurIPS 2022, we evaluate GPT-5-mini against human reviewers across ratings, strengths, and weaknesses.<n>Our findings show that LLMs consistently inflate ratings for weaker papers while aligning more closely with human judgments on stronger contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T00:57:50Z)
• Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation [0.552480439325792]
  We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges.<n> o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost.<n>This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:14:30Z)
• Detecting LLM-Written Peer Reviews [37.51215252353345]
  There is growing concern about the rise of lazy reviewing practices, where reviewers use large language models (LLMs) to generate reviews instead of writing them independently. Existing tools for detecting LLM-generated content are not designed to differentiate between fully LLM-generated reviews and those merely polished by an LLM. In this work, we employ a straightforward approach to identify LLM-generated reviews - doing an indirect prompt injection via the paper PDF to ask the LLM to embed a watermark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T01:11:35Z)
• ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews [26.031039064337907]
  Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community. With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge. We propose ReviewAgents, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate academic paper reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T14:56:58Z)
• Automatically Evaluating the Paper Reviewing Capability of Large Language Models [46.0003776499898]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for providing assistance, but research has reported significant limitations in the reviews they generate. We developed an automatic evaluation pipeline to assess the LLMs' paper review capability by comparing them with expert-generated reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T12:05:27Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review. The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system. We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• Review-LLM: Harnessing Large Language Models for Personalized Review Generation [8.898103706804616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown superior text modeling and generating ability. We propose Review-LLM that customizes LLMs for personalized review generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T09:22:19Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations [23.938202791437337]
  We investigate whether LLMs can serve as evaluators of recommendation explanations. We design and apply a 3-level meta evaluation strategy to measure the correlation between evaluator labels and the ground truth provided by users. Our study verifies that utilizing LLMs as evaluators can be an accurate, reproducible and cost-effective solution for evaluating recommendation explanation texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T13:23:23Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation [27.379753994272875]
  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 generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:43:10Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
  We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.