Scientific writing is an iterative process that generates rich revision traces, yet publicly available resources typically expose only final or near-final versions of papers. This limits empirical study of revision behaviour and evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for scientific writing. We introduce EarlySciRev, a dataset of early-stage scientific text revisions automatically extracted from arXiv LaTeX source files. Our key observation is that commented-out text in LaTeX often preserves discarded or alternative formulations written by the authors themselves. By aligning commented segments with nearby final text, we extract paragraph-level candidate revision pairs and apply LLM-based filtering to retain genuine revisions. Starting from 1.28M candidate pairs, our pipeline yields 578k validated revision pairs, grounded in authentic early drafting traces. We additionally provide a human-annotated benchmark for revision detection. EarlySciRev complements existing resources focused on late-stage revisions or synthetic rewrites and supports research on scientific writing dynamics, revision modelling, and LLM-assisted editing.
Table 1: Alignment of LLM-based classifier to human majority vote. Thr. is the threshold used to binarise *-PLUIE values, Acc. the accuracy, P. the precision, R. the recall and time the estimated time to classify all the data. Bold values indicate the best results, and underlined values indicate the second-best results.
#rev
#paper
#rev/§
#words/§
% words diff
578,440
104,023
1.10
82.42
56.85
Table 2: Characteristics of EarlySciRev. In this order: number of revision pairs, number of articles, average number of commented paragraphs per final paragraph, average number of words per paragraph (final version), average percentage of difference in words per revision pair
Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it leads to a measurable improvement in the paper. We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer, and evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields. To mirror how human authors build on earlier drafts, the AI scientist has access to its previous versions during revision. To avoid bias from prior judgments, however, each review is generated independently, with the reviewer having no memory of earlier feedback or scores. We compare three revision settings: one initialized with the original venue reviews, one initialized with AI-generated reviews, and autonomous self-revision using the same fixed prompt in every round. Because the reviewer both guides and evaluates the revision, we also assess the human-initialized revisions using Stanford Reviewer as an independent evaluator. Reviewer-guided revision consistently improves more than fixed-prompt self-revision, and Stanford Reviewer also assigns higher scores to later revisions. AppliedScientist resolves 128 of 150 execution-related weaknesses (85.3%), but only 2 of 18 idea-related weaknesses (11.1%), suggesting that iterative revision is effective at improving experiments and implementation, but rarely changes concerns about novelty or significance.
Vidushee Vats, Karun Sharma, Shengzhi Li +1
Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Boston
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled AI systems to assist scientific research and peer review. However, an essential capability for reliable AI-assisted scientific workflows remains underexplored: verifying whether reviewer feedback leads to meaningful and evidence-supported manuscript improvements. We introduce AutoSupervision, which evaluates whether scientific manuscript revisions genuinely address reviewer concerns through grounded evidence. AutoSupervision leverages transparent peer-review records as a natural source of supervision, where reviewer comments specify scientific concerns, author responses describe claimed resolutions, and revised manuscripts provide evidence of changes. Given reviewer comments, author responses, and revised manuscripts, models must characterize reviewer concerns, determine whether concerns have been addressed, and identify supporting manuscript evidence. We construct AutoSupervision from 56,000 Nature Communications articles and corresponding review records. Then we conducted experiments on LLMs, the ablation study, and the case study. Our results show that while LLMs perform well in characterizing reviewer concerns, with GPT-5.5 achieving a score of 0.754, evidence-based verification remains the primary bottleneck, with the best-performing model reaching only 0.501.
Haobo Li, Eunseo Jung, Wenxiao Zhao +8
1Shanghai AI Laboratory · 3The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · University of California, Los Angeles
Local factual edits in scientific manuscripts often create non-local revision obligations. If a dataset changes from 215 to 80 documents, claims such as 'medium-scale' or 'a few hundred items' may also become stale, even though they do not repeat the edited number. In an audit of recent arXiv cs.CL benchmark and dataset papers, we find fact-dependent qualitative claims in 37.2% of papers, suggesting that this dependency pattern is common in the target genre. We introduce EditPropBench, a benchmark for measuring whether LLM editors propagate factual edits through dependent manuscript claims. Each item contains an ML/NLP-style synthetic manuscript, a targeted edit, and a controlled fact graph with sentence-level labels for direct targets, required downstream updates, and unrelated text that should remain unchanged. We summarize cascade success with Edit-Ripple Adherence (ERA), the fraction of required downstream updates correctly revised, and validate the metric with adversarial probes and stress-test variants. On the hardest cases, where dependent claims use implicit or free-form wording rather than repeating the edited value, five LLM editing systems span ERA 0.148-0.705. Even the strongest misses roughly 30% of required cascade updates. This advantage persists in a mixed evaluation that includes easy cases solvable by deterministic substitution. EditPropBench shows that current LLM editors can repair many implicit consequences of factual edits, but reliable scientific revision still requires cascade-aware checking.