Reimagining Peer Review Process Through Multi-Agent Mechanism Design

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19778v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:43:11 GMT
• Title: Reimagining Peer Review Process Through Multi-Agent Mechanism Design
• Authors: Ahmad Farooq, Kamran Iqbal,
• Abstract summary: The software engineering research community faces a systemic crisis: peer review is failing under growing submissions, misaligned incentives, and reviewer fatigue.<n>This position paper argues that these dysfunctions are mechanism design failures to computational solutions.<n>We propose three interventions: a credit-based submission economy, MARL-optimized reviewer assignment, and hybrid verification of consistency.
• Score: 2.5782420501870296
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The software engineering research community faces a systemic crisis: peer review is failing under growing submissions, misaligned incentives, and reviewer fatigue. Community surveys reveal that researchers perceive the process as "broken." This position paper argues that these dysfunctions are mechanism design failures amenable to computational solutions. We propose modeling the research community as a stochastic multi-agent system and applying multi-agent reinforcement learning to design incentive-compatible protocols. We outline three interventions: a credit-based submission economy, MARL-optimized reviewer assignment, and hybrid verification of review consistency. We present threat models, equity considerations, and phased pilot metrics. This vision charts a research agenda toward sustainable peer review.

Related papers

• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Towards A Sustainable Future for Peer Review in Software Engineering [5.42073906150267]
  The rapid growth of paper submissions in software engineering venues has outpaced the availability of qualified reviewers.<n>Our vision of the Future of the SE research landscape involves a more scalable, inclusive, and resilient peer review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T14:14:44Z)
• DIML: Differentiable Inverse Mechanism Learning from Behaviors of Multi-Agent Learning Trajectories [7.764532811300023]
  We study inverse mechanism learning: recovering an unknown incentive-generating mechanism from observed strategic interaction traces.<n>Unlike inverse game theory and multi-agent inverse reinforcement learning, our target includes unstructured mechanism.<n>We propose DIML, a likelihood-based framework that differentiates through a model of multi-agent learning dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-25T03:49:25Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey on Benchmarks and Solutions in Software Engineering of LLM-Empowered Agentic System [56.40989626804489]
  This survey provides the first holistic analysis of Large Language Models-powered software engineering.<n>We review over 150 recent papers and propose a taxonomy along two key dimensions: (1) Solutions, categorized into prompt-based, fine-tuning-based, and agent-based paradigms, and (2) Benchmarks, including tasks such as code generation, translation, and repair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T06:56:50Z)
• Learning to Summarize by Learning to Quiz: Adversarial Agentic Collaboration for Long Document Summarization [86.98098988779809]
  We propose SummQ, a novel adversarial multi-agent framework for long document summarization.<n>Our approach employs summary generators and reviewers that work collaboratively to create and evaluate comprehensive summaries.<n>We evaluate SummQ on three widely used long document summarization benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T08:36:19Z)
• AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production [4.031479494871582]
  We present Agent, the first evaluation framework designed specifically for post-deployment monitoring and reasoning of agentic pipeline.<n>Agent achieves state-of-the-art results on key metrics, while uncovering critical issues missed in human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T05:59:04Z)
• Identity Theft in AI Conference Peer Review [50.18240135317708]
  We discuss newly uncovered cases of identity theft in the scientific peer-review process within artificial intelligence (AI) research.<n>We detail how dishonest researchers exploit the peer-review system by creating fraudulent reviewer profiles to manipulate paper evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T02:36:52Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review [36.05498398665352]
  We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review.<n>Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the peer review process-papers, reviews, and rebuttals-across several quality aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:50:06Z)

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.