Do large language models scrutinise what they review? A multimodal audit of scoring calibration, error detection, and author-identity effects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28626v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:12:33 GMT
• Title: Do large language models scrutinise what they review? A multimodal audit of scoring calibration, error detection, and author-identity effects
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews.<n>This study evaluates two multimodal LLMs as reviewers across 165 submissions to the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews, prompting examination of their capacity for critical evaluation. This study evaluates two multimodal LLMs, Qwen2.5-VL-72B and Pixtral-Large-124B, as reviewers across 165 submissions to the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations, a venue that postdates both models' training cutoffs. Manuscripts were presented to both models with author identities blinded, replaced with high-prestige affiliations, or replaced with low-prestige affiliations, and in either text-only or text-with-figure format. Additionally, 145 verifiably detectable errors were inserted into 55 manuscripts to assess error identification under natural and verification-oriented prompts. Across all manuscript groups, including rejected submissions, LLM scores ranged from 7.0 to 8.1, whereas human mean scores ranged from 3.4 to 6.8. The models detected 12.1\% of the verified errors under natural prompting, and a one-sentence verification instruction increased detection to 22.2\%; however, 78\% of the errors remained undetected. Providing figures reduced error detection while increasing review scores. No visual error was reliably verified against its corresponding figure, and half of the text-only reviews described figures that were not provided. Author identity did not influence either review scores or error detection. LLM editorial decisions exactly matched those produced by simple score averaging.

Related papers

• Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education [0.3686530147760243]
  This study evaluates vision-language models for handwritten outcome-based assessment.<n>We compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T04:55:55Z)
• AtomCite: Verification and Correction of Supplied Page-Level Citations in Multi-Page Documents [21.842813905857863]
  AtomCite parses an answer into claims, checks each claim against the image of the cited page, and applies a deterministic repair policy.<n>It reaches around 93% binary verification accuracy on the injected benchmark, significantly outperforming every OCR-only condition.<n>Its repair policy lifts citation precision on the injected mix from a constructed 34% to 87-90% while retaining over 90% of correct claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-05T01:31:50Z)
• Decoupling Scores and Text: The Politeness Principle in Peer Review [0.0]
  Authors often struggle to interpret peer review feedback, deriving false hope from polite comments or feeling confused by specific low scores.<n>We construct a dataset of over 30,000 ICLR 2021-2025 submissions and compare acceptance prediction performance using numerical scores versus text reviews.<n>Our experiments reveal a significant performance gap: score-based models achieve 91% accuracy, while text-based models reach only 81% even with large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T11:58:48Z)
• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• 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)
• FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers [10.04850395402571]
  The identification and localization of errors is a core task in peer review.<n>Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked interest in their potential to support such evaluation tasks.<n>Despite the growing use of LLMs in review systems, their capabilities to pinpoint errors remain underexplored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T19:19:44Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Tgea: An error-annotated dataset and benchmark tasks for text generation from pretrained language models [57.758735361535486]
  TGEA is an error-annotated dataset for text generation from pretrained language models (PLMs)<n>We create an error taxonomy to cover 24 types of errors occurring in PLM-generated sentences.<n>This is the first dataset with comprehensive annotations for PLM-generated texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T09:14:02Z)
• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment.<n>We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, based on the idea of filtering out non-impactful errors.<n>Experiments show that our approach consistently improves both the reliability and quality of error spans against GEMBA-MQM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• Assessing the Efficacy of Grammar Error Correction: A Human Evaluation Approach in the Japanese Context [10.047123247001714]
  We evaluate the performance of the state-of-the-art sequence tagging grammar error detection and correction model (SeqTagger) With an automatic annotation toolkit, ERRANT, we first evaluated SeqTagger's performance on error correction with human expert correction as the benchmark. Results indicated a precision of 63.66% and a recall of 20.19% for error correction in the full dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T06:43:43Z)

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.