LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform

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.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

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.