Tree-of-Concerns: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Debate for Unstated-Limitation Extraction in Scientific Critique

As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: an informal medium prone to ambiguity, hidden assumptions, and untracked limitations that machines cannot reliably audit. We introduce Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims. By turning research arguments into executable artifacts, Lara provides an epistemic kernel for autonomous science: it enables automated validation pipelines for research agents, lets declared bridges connect arguments across papers into an auditable network, and allows both humans and machines to recheck the standing of an encoded claim in milliseconds. In a Lara program, authors explicitly declare their claims, supporting evidence and assumptions, and known objections or limitations. A lightweight, deterministic checker adjudicates these interactions, assigning each claim a reproducible status: "justified", "defeated", "contested", or "gap", which marks a claim whose support is incomplete and locates the unanswered question. Case studies cover empirical review, a philosophical debate without measurements, and the loss of support when an assumed axiom is withdrawn. We establish the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport, and mechanize the semantic guarantees in Lean 4 (roughly 117,000 lines), leaving three arguments on paper. The audited public metatheory is "sorry"-free and uses only Lean's three standard axioms; some executable examples additionally trust native evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence. We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper based on accumulated evidence, as human reviewers do. In this paper, we explore how to enable an LLM-based review agent to perform such proactive investigation. We find that this can be naturally formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log. The structured review log serves as a workspace for the agent to track evidence and intermediate findings collected during review. Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions, outperforming prompt-based methods with much larger frontier LLMs by up to 39% and the strongest fine-tuned baseline by 16% relatively. It also attains the highest win rates against baselines in human evaluation.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.