Using Large Language Models to Support High Volume Application Review for an Undergraduate Research Program
Authors: Varun Aggarwal, Kay Kobak, John Howarter
Organizations: Engineering Undergraduate Research Office, Purdue University · Elmore School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University · School of Materials Engineering, Purdue University
Abstract
Undergraduate research programs such as the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) at Purdue University receive thousands of applications every year, requiring significant time and effort for program staff to evaluate each submission consistently and within tight timelines. This work-in-progress paper describes the development and initial deployment of a large language model (LLM)-based tool to assist in the evaluation of approximately 1,200 student Statements of Purpose (SoPs) for the SURF 2026 cycle at Purdue University. The workflow utilizes OpenAI GPT models (GPT-4o, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5.2) and uses a structured rubric across six subcategories, each scored on a 0-3 scale. A few SoPs, graded by program staff, were used to tune the model responses. The model prompt was designed to generate both numerical scores, rationales (including positive and negative aspects) and short excerpts from each submission. Using GPT-5.2, the full batch of 1,200 SoPs was processed in approximately 4.6 hours of compute time, averaging roughly 14 seconds per SoP (with per-SoP timing varying with SoP length, which ranged from 500 to 2,000 words). Notable differences in rubric adherence were observed across model versions, with GPT-5.2 adhering most closely. Disagreement in model scores was more pronounced for lower-scoring submissions. The LLM outputs replicated the role previously played by distributed human graders, providing the program coordinator with scored and rationale-annotated outputs for the entire applicant pool. The program coordinator then reviewed these outputs alongside each applicant's SoP, applying the same downstream office criteria used in prior SURF cycles, to produce a shortlist of strong candidates. This coordinator review was completed in approximately 4 hours, compared to the multi-week coordination effort required in prior program cycles.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.
Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns. We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score, against the public decision outcomes of a major machine learning venue. AIPR grades by prompting alone, with no fine-tuning on reviews or decisions. Across 300 ICLR submissions with public decision tiers and reviewer ratings, graded under a frozen pipeline with hypotheses pre-registered before any score met any outcome, the overall score separates rejected from accepted submissions (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87), rises monotonically across tiers, and tracks the mean reviewer rating. The signal is strongest where we claim it: the lowest-scoring fifth is rejected far above the base rate, with oral papers absent. The validity comes mostly from the model: a one-paragraph prompt on the same model discriminates almost as well as the full pipeline (the small gap favours the pipeline but does not meet the pre-declared criterion, p = 0.09). What the engineering adds is reliability and a grounded review: AIPR's score barely moves across repeated runs (0.7 vs. 2.8 points within-paper SD) where the bare prompt swings, and the same pass returns a rubric-structured, evidence-grounded review rather than a bare number, with the human keeping the decision.