Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19749v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:30:06 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems
• Abstract summary: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research.<n>We evaluate two open-source systems (OpenAIReview and coarse), one proprietary system (Reviewer3), and a zero-shot baseline.<n>We show that while AI reviews still have room for improvement, they can already track human quality judgments well, catch important errors, and earn positive feedback from real users.
• Score: 25.437512824197736
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated. We evaluate two open-source systems (OpenAIReview and coarse), one proprietary system (Reviewer3), and a zero-shot baseline, across six LLMs spanning frontier and efficient models. First, we study whether AI reviews on ICLR/NeurIPS papers track with papers' quality as approximated by external signals such as citations and acceptance decisions. Every system performs above chance in pairwise accuracy, and the best is OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5 at 83.0%. Second, to test whether systems can catch errors with known ground truth, we construct a perturbation benchmark that injects four categories of errors into papers across eight arXiv subject classes and measure detection recall. The strongest configuration (OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5) catches 71.6% of injected errors, leaving substantial room for improvement. The union of detections across six models reaches 83.3% recall, suggesting different models detect different errors and better harness design can potentially increase performance. Beyond these benchmarks, we study a public deployment of OpenAIReview with real users. Votes on its comments skew positive at 1.44 to 1, and the most common complaints are about false positives and minor nitpicks. Together, by evaluating full review systems backed by state-of-the-art models on real research papers, we show that while AI reviews still have room for improvement, they can already track human quality judgments well, catch important errors, and earn positive feedback from real users.

Related papers

• AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing [10.712519962597604]
  We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer.<n>We evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T18:59:10Z)
• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• FirstPass: Grounding AI Scientific Judgment in Multi-Round Editorial Outcomes [0.27998963147546146]
  We introduce FirstPass, a dataset fine-tuned model that addresses all three fronts of AI for peer review.<n>We exploit mandatory transparent peer review (instituted November 2022) and verify 100% content integrity by automated audit.<n>On generation, FirstPass produces reviews averaging 1,187 words, substantially closer to human references (2,155 words) than any baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T15:06:36Z)
• Intelligence Is Not the Bottleneck: Validating an LLM First-Pass Manuscript Score Against Peer-Review Outcomes [0.0]
  Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review.<n>Most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.<n>We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T16:13:15Z)
• Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community [33.39468805524881]
  We show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation.<n>We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers.<n>Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T20:38:06Z)
• SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones? [51.154921661608675]
  We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions.<n>SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T17:57:37Z)
• On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists [113.03797263688519]
  Many scientists view AI reviewers as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research.<n>Existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T03:33:55Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis [47.124493265404595]
  Our analysis focuses on objective mistakes-e.g., errors in formulas, derivations, calculations, figures, and tables-that have a clearly verifiable ground truth.<n>We find that published papers contain a non-negligible number of objective mistakes and that the average number of mistakes per paper has increased over time-from 3.8 in NeurIPS 2021 to 5.9 in NeurIPS 2025 (55.3% increase).<n>We show that the AI Checker can propose correct fixes for 75.8% of the identified mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-05T18:04:10Z)
• BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? [21.78901120638025]
  We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T18:37:11Z)
• ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detection via LLM-Driven Data Augmentation [3.9199635838637072]
  ReviewGuard is an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews.<n>It produces a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews.<n> deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T15:45:26Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• 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)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

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.