Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09737v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 22:01:25 GMT
• Title: Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025
• Authors: Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl Vondrick, James Zou,
• Abstract summary: Review Feedback Agent provides automated feedback on vague comments, content misunderstandings, and unprofessional remarks to reviewers.<n>It was implemented at ICLR 2025 as a large randomized control study.<n> 27% of reviewers who received feedback updated their reviews, and over 12,000 feedback suggestions from the agent were incorporated by those reviewers.
• Score: 115.86204862475864
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction. To address these issues, we developed Review Feedback Agent, a system leveraging multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve review clarity and actionability by providing automated feedback on vague comments, content misunderstandings, and unprofessional remarks to reviewers. Implemented at ICLR 2025 as a large randomized control study, our system provided optional feedback to more than 20,000 randomly selected reviews. To ensure high-quality feedback for reviewers at this scale, we also developed a suite of automated reliability tests powered by LLMs that acted as guardrails to ensure feedback quality, with feedback only being sent to reviewers if it passed all the tests. The results show that 27% of reviewers who received feedback updated their reviews, and over 12,000 feedback suggestions from the agent were incorporated by those reviewers. This suggests that many reviewers found the AI-generated feedback sufficiently helpful to merit updating their reviews. Incorporating AI feedback led to significantly longer reviews (an average increase of 80 words among those who updated after receiving feedback) and more informative reviews, as evaluated by blinded researchers. Moreover, reviewers who were selected to receive AI feedback were also more engaged during paper rebuttals, as seen in longer author-reviewer discussions. This work demonstrates that carefully designed LLM-generated review feedback can enhance peer review quality by making reviews more specific and actionable while increasing engagement between reviewers and authors. The Review Feedback Agent is publicly available at https://github.com/zou-group/review_feedback_agent.

Related papers

• LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews [74.87393214734114]
  This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• Understanding and Supporting Peer Review Using AI-reframed Positive Summary [18.686807993563168]
  This study explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task. We found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance. We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how it can influence critique acceptance and support research communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T11:22:12Z)
• 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.<n>With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge.<n>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)
• 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.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>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)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation [28.050468098801872]
  We propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2.<n>Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address.<n>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)
• On the Role of Reviewer Expertise in Temporal Review Helpfulness Prediction [5.381004207943597]
  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. We introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T23:41:22Z)
• Automating App Review Response Generation [67.58267006314415]
  We propose a novel approach RRGen that automatically generates review responses by learning knowledge relations between reviews and their responses. Experiments on 58 apps and 309,246 review-response pairs highlight that RRGen outperforms the baselines by at least 67.4% in terms of BLEU-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T05:23:38Z)

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.