Review

We increasingly use machine learning to label scientific datasets. The models we develop and deploy are improving all the time, but they are not and will likely never be perfect. Mistakes matter, as errors can propagate into our scientific understanding, particularly when systematically biased. Very reasonably, scientists thus review substantial proportions of ML-generated labels to verify or correct mistakes in pursuit of ensuring their scientific findings are not biased by ML. In this work, we focus on helping scientists optimally allocate this reviewing effort relative to their scientific goals. We focus on a specific class of scientists (ecologists) and a specific, widespread, and impactful modeling target (occupancy modeling, which estimates where species are likely to occur, conditioned on environmental factors). We introduce Active Continuous-Score Occupancy Modeling (ACORN), a method that incorporates ML predictions into occupancy models and strategically selects samples for expert review that are maximally informative for downstream ecological analysis. Across camera-trap and bioacoustic datasets, our method recovers ecological conclusions close to those obtained from fully human-labeled data, while requiring substantially fewer expert reviews than non-targeted review policies. Our results suggest that ML-assisted scientific workflows should optimize expert effort for downstream inference, rather than for classifier accuracy alone, especially when human review budget is limited. Our code is available at https://github.com/timmh/acorn

Scientific discovery is defined by the ability to identify the boundaries of existing knowledge and venture into unexplored territory. The ultimate vision for AI in science is problem-driven autonomous research: given a fundamental challenge by a human expert, the AI independently navigates the scientific landscape, uncovers theoretical and empirical bottlenecks, and systematically expands the frontier of knowledge. In this paper, we introduce ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi-agent framework designed to realize this vision. Specifically, ScientistTwo takes an initial problem as input, establishes state-of-the-art baselines, formulates novel hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to orchestrate an end-to-end discovery cycle without human intervention. Moreover, the framework rigorously conducts experiments using diverse datasets and metrics, refines methodologies through automated ablation studies, and validates research findings via a closed-loop simulated peer-review rebuttal engine. To evaluate ScientistTwo's capabilities against the highest standards of human scientific achievement, we benchmark it across papers accepted at top-tier conferences such as ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. As a result, ScientistTwo autonomously generates expert-level, publishable papers and fully verified, executable codebases. Its solutions consistently outperform human state-of-the-art models, and achieve higher average review ratings than human-authored papers under automated AI review agents. These results show that ScientistTwo is not merely an assistive tool but an autonomous scientific pioneer capable of pushing the frontiers of human discovery. Project website: https://scientist-two.github.io/

When someone asks an AI assistant which doctor to see or which firm to trust with their savings, the answer is a referral. We audit AI provider recommendations in four registry-backed service domains across the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, matching every recommendation against the official registry for its domain (Medicare clinician and facility records, and SEC adviser disclosures), under three conditions: an open-weight model, a proprietary model without web search, and the same proprietary model with search. Without search, both models largely fabricate recommendations in the domains the web covers thinly. Only 4% of the open-weight model's recommended doctors and 11% of the proprietary model's match a clinician in the queried city, and the open-weight matches are name coincidences: its matched clinicians are no likelier to be primary-care doctors than names drawn at random from the registry. With search, 64-71% of recommendations in the same domains match a real provider. Search also changes who is recommended. Without it, recommended advisory firms carry SEC misconduct disclosures at 3.6 times the registry base rate, even after adjusting for firm size; with search, significantly below it. Restaurants, where quality and visibility are separately measurable, show a 3-5x review-count premium but a rating premium of at most a tenth of a star. Finally, search largely removes the metro-size penalty: without it, real recommendations concentrate in the largest metros; with it, match rates are similar across metro-size terciles. Whether an AI referral is trustworthy depends strongly on its retrieval configuration rather than on the underlying model alone, yet an answer produced without retrieval often carries no sign that its recommendations were never verified.

Autoresearch agents are reshaping the research ecosystem, but they can also let flawed claims enter the literature at scale. Human advisors catch such issues in drafts through careful, traceable feedback, yet advisor-style assessment requires extensive manual effort and does not scale. To shift automated paper assessment from a judge to a diagnostician, we introduce PaperDoctor, an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations. First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through three layers: L1 surface screening, L2 typed verifiers that route each claim to the appropriate evidence, and L3 reproducers that rerun experiments by priority. Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion, making critiques auditable and actionable. Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget, surfacing reproducibility gaps and quantitative limitations that are invisible from the manuscript alone. We evaluate PaperDoctor on 30 in-progress papers, yielding 70.6% agreement and all positive holistic scores, and on 40 manuscripts across machine learning, natural science, and social science, covering human- and AI-authored papers with code. Overall, PaperDoctor produces more auditable feedback than human and other agentic reviewers, pairs critiques with concrete suggestions by design, and complements dimensions often overlooked by human reviewers. We also develop an interactive interface that lets authors browse findings grounded in their paper. PaperDoctor reframes automated paper assessment as diagnosis rather than verdict, taking a concrete step toward AI advisors for more rigorous AI-assisted scientific discovery.

Long-running AI agents create a control problem: each action they take changes the state, which in turn affects the trajectory of future actions. If the agent is not fully aligned, then guaranteeing safety requires approving consequential actions before allowing them to be executed. But requiring human approval at every step makes attention a bottleneck. Delegating review to other AI agents raises the same alignment problem: the reviewers may themselves be misaligned. We identify a condition on a reviewing panel that is weaker than individual alignment yet necessary and sufficient for a guarantee that the principal fares at least as well in expectation as under a designated baseline policy. Each reviewer agent reports whether an action proposal made by a proposer agent improves its own utility relative to the baseline. We show that a threshold rule tolerating $k$ disapprovals is safe exactly when, after any $k$ reviewers are removed, the principal's utility can be written as a nonnegative combination of the remaining reviewers' utilities, plus a term that is nonnegative on every feasible proposal. We call this property $k$-robust coalitional alignment. The characterization lifts to sequential control: in a discounted MDP with an arbitrary proposer agent, safety at every state is both necessary and sufficient for the induced policy to match or improve on the baseline. When reviewers vote strategically, full-panel coverage in reward-function space guarantees that every Nash equilibrium is safe under the unanimous approval rule; in contrast, more permissive thresholds can admit unsafe equilibria even when reviewers are individually aligned. Experiments with existing reviewer models show that collective review can remain sound without an aligned individual, even when some disapprovals are tolerated.

Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We conducted a structured, seeded review of 24 focal empirical publications, starting from the 2024 COSMIN-based review and adding a targeted update through 17 August 2026. We grouped the measures into four domains: knowledge and use, epistemic oversight, reliance calibration, and operational control of tool-using agents. In an exploratory meta-analysis, we pooled three direct subjective-objective correlations from one research program (REML r = .055; Hartung-Knapp 95% CI [-.047, .156]; combined reported N = 2,765). We could not resolve a discrepancy between the largest study's reported correlation and p-value, leaving its weight uncertain. Adding a synthetic mean of 12 cross-factor correlations from a fourth study gave r = .079 (95% CI [-.025, .181]). This sensitivity analysis concerns a broader comparison. From this small evidence base, we cannot establish a population correlation, validate workplace cutoffs, or justify substituting self-ratings for performance scores. We identified tests of foundation knowledge (AICOS-S and GLAT) and measures of verification, reliance, trust, and dependency. We found no validated individual-level instrument in the focal corpus that tests the full combination of agent scope, permissions, recovery, state isolation, independent review, and evidence-based closure; some cover subsets. We propose a four-layer workplace battery with non-compensatory decision rules, but have not tested its thresholds or whether it improves on other assessment approaches.

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.

An OpenReview bug in November 2025 broke anonymity at several conferences and prompted calls for open review, which motivate us to ask what shifting from blind to open would mean for authors. Analyzing over 18,000 reviewed submissions to ICLR 2026, split into de facto open and blind groups by arXiv preprint timing, we find that ratings rise with author reputation under both mechanisms, with a steeper slope under open review that is statistically significant, and that the open-blind difference is concentrated at the borderline ratings. The pattern holds across five reputation proxies (including institution, h-index, and citation count), three author-aggregation rules, and five definitions of the open window. A controlled simulation with five AI models as reviewers, holding the manuscript fixed and varying the author reputation, reproduces the effect. With claude-opus-5 as the reviewer, for example, rating rises by 0.5 points as the author moves from low to high reputation.

Visual feedback in the form of user-uploaded images and videos is becoming increasingly common in e-commerce platforms because it provides authentic evidence of product quality, defects, packaging conditions, and real-world usage. However, visual feedback alone often lacks the contextual explanations and subjective opinions necessary for informed decision-making, while many users provide limited textual feedback due to the effort required to compose detailed reviews. To bridge this gap, we introduce image-grounded review assistance, a novel task that aims to generate editable review drafts from user-uploaded product images. Unlike conventional image captioning, which focuses on objective visual description, the proposed task requires product-specific understanding, sentiment estimation, and evidence-driven review composition under challenging real-world conditions, including degraded image quality, excessive zoom-in, target ambiguity, and partial product visibility. We propose a multi-agent vision-language framework consisting of four specialised roles: product grounding, visual sentiment estimation, visual evidence generation, and review synthesis. The framework employs explicit intermediate representations, including product entities, predicted ratings, and evidence summaries, to improve interpretability and visual grounding. Experiments on a curated subset of the Amazon Reviews Electronics dataset demonstrate the feasibility of generating coherent, product-aware, and sentiment-aware review drafts from visual feedback. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to formulate image-grounded review assistance as a multi-agent vision-language reasoning problem, providing a practical step toward AI-assisted review authoring in e-commerce systems.

Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents. Existing benchmarks do not capture this setting and largely focus on explicit, information-seeking queries. We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers. We build on a simple observation: author rebuttals often include explicit references to content of the submission used to address reviewer comments, providing a high-precision annotation source. We cast grounding as a retrieval task and evaluate a wide range of retrieval methods. Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses. Our dataset exposes grounding reviewer comments as a difficult and practically important problem for scientific document understanding.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Large language models have collapsed the cost of producing lexically elaborate prose, and whether peer reviewers still reward it is a question about the evaluator, not about the text. When the association between a writing cue and review scores moves across years, the reviewers may have changed, the submissions may have changed, or both, and a regression of scores on text cannot say which. We separate the two with a frozen rater: 81,850 machine reviews of ICLR submissions from 2018 to 2025, all generated in one February-April 2025 window with one model family and one prompt, so that its year-to-year coefficients track submission composition alone and the human-minus-frozen trend difference identifies reviewer preference drift. On 32,638 submissions with 124,615 human reviews, the human coefficient on non-domain lexical complexity falls from +0.142 to -0.015 while the frozen rater moves from +0.080 to +0.082; the three-way difference-in-differences is -0.0100 (q=0.013), and forty random-wordlist placebos through the same specification centre on zero. Humans still reward sentence-length variability, which the frozen rater never registers, while the frozen rater still pays for lexical complexity at its earlier rate. Every claim is held to a double gate of false-discovery control and interval exclusion, and the findings that failed adversarial re-testing are reported. Reviewers discounted a cue whose production cost collapsed, as models of manipulable signals prescribe; an LLM judge calibrated to historical human preferences inherits the earlier schedule and drifts out of alignment while its agreement with humans on totals stays ordinary.

AI reviewers can now produce many specific criticisms, but more criticism is not necessarily a better review. A review may miss a consequential weakness or retain an allegation that available evidence does not support. These failures require opposite corrections, yet generation-oriented systems and aggregate measures obscure the distinction. We therefore recast AI-assisted review as evidence-guided refinement of a structured concern set, with omission and overcritique treated as separate risks. Building on this formulation, we introduce EquiReview-R, which resolves existing concerns against localized evidence, searches for missing issues from independent and review-conditioned perspectives, and returns stop, continue, or defer. To expose the failure mode that motivates this design, we construct an evidence-linked trajectory corpus. Its retrospective analysis shows why revision must precede further search: nearly all concerns in a high-recall review lack a definitive evidential disposition, while an earlier refinement mechanism cannot revise them. On a frozen cohort of previously unseen papers, EquiReview-R satisfies the prespecified non-inferiority criterion for major omission, reduces major overcritique from 15.5% to 8.1%, and attains a one-sided omission upper bound of 9.9% while stopping on 52.4% of papers. Computation-matched controls, controlled pairs, and ablations show that the gain comes from revision rather than extra inference or shorter output. We release the corpus as ReviewTrace, an evidence-linked resource for studying review revision, disagreement, and provenance.

The growing scale of academic peer review has motivated the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as review assistants, yet LLMs can generate fluent but unsupported claims that undermine review reliability. Existing hallucination benchmarks are not designed for peer review, where verification requires grounding claims in long, technical papers. We introduce HalluPeer, a benchmark for detecting hallucinations in scientific peer reviews, providing aligned triples of paper content, human-written reviews, and hallucination-injected reviews, annotated for detection, classification, and localization. Our pipeline induces a peer-review-specific hallucination taxonomy, identifies review contexts, and injects hallucinations with automated filtering. Experiments on 12K papers and 38K reviews show that existing detectors struggle to separate hallucinations from legitimate critique, while evaluation on authentic reviews demonstrates that HalluPeer-defined hallucination patterns occur in real peer reviews, highlighting the critical need for source-aware verification. Our project page can be found in https://github.com/Lin-TzuLing/HalluPeer.git

Large language models can convert medical documents into structured data, but plausible output may still be unsupported by the source. Persisting such output in a longitudinal health record, a record that accumulates patient information over time, therefore creates an integrity risk: unverified data may influence later summaries, trends, or preventive-care computations. We introduce an evidence-gated trust-promotion model that keeps generated data provisional until a deterministic monitor verifies it against the source document. The monitor admits a candidate for a specified downstream use only when the source contains a unique supporting quotation, the relevant fields occur within the same laboratory row, and the required provenance is preserved. The generator cannot approve its own output, missing or ambiguous evidence causes refusal, and refused candidates remain available for human review rather than being silently discarded. We implement the model in Medical DataCloud, a personal health-record application, and evaluate it through automated tests and a replay of saved extraction outputs. All 22 conformance and mutation tests pass. The replay covers nine historical laboratory PDF reports containing 102 manually labelled rows. The reports produce 97 numeric candidates: schema validation accepts all 97, an earlier packet-level evidence check accepts 94, and the hardened quotation- and row-level policy admits 72 while retaining 25 for review. The study evaluates system integrity rather than clinical correctness or clinical safety. The results demonstrate the technical feasibility of an enforceable boundary that prevents generated claims from authorizing their own reuse in a longitudinal health record.

Consumer reviews play an important role in shaping brand perception and business strategies, particularly in service-driven industries such as retail coffee. This study presents a comparative sentiment analysis framework for Starbucks customer reviews using classical machine learning and deep learning approaches. The dataset, collected from ConsumerAffairs, contains more than 700 reviews and was analyzed through preprocessing and exploratory data analysis to identify temporal and geographic patterns. Sentiment labels were generated by binarizing star ratings, with ratings of 4 and 5 classified as positive and ratings of 1 to 3 as negative. The resulting dataset was substantially imbalanced toward negative sentiment. Five machine learning classifiers, including Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes, were evaluated alongside five deep learning models: LSTM, RNN, Bidirectional LSTM, GRU, and CNN. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. SVM achieved the highest accuracy among the machine learning models at 91.0 percent, while Bidirectional LSTM showed the strongest performance among the deep learning models and demonstrated good generalization on unseen data. The findings also show that class imbalance negatively affected positive sentiment recall across several models. Overall, this study provides a comparative evaluation of machine learning and deep learning approaches for real-world consumer sentiment analysis and highlights the importance of appropriate model selection and preprocessing for customer experience analytics in the retail coffee sector.

Code review is credited with substantially changing a patch's code between its first submission and the version that eventually lands. However, prior work typically studied only the final merged patch without comparing it to the first submission. We present a function-level measurement that tracks 10,117 trajectories (each function followed across the numbered revisions of one patch series) through the patch history of the Linux IIO subsystem, comparing similarity scores against unrelated function pairs as a baseline. A naive reading yields near-total similarity, but this is largely an artifact of composition: 75.3% of tracked trajectories are never textually modified between versions, contributing a trivial 100% similarity that inflates the headline. Restricting to the trajectories with a real edit, semantic purpose is still largely preserved (mean similarity 0.990 vs. a 0.909 baseline), but drift appears to concentrate in the first review round mainly because later rounds contain more functions that nobody touched, not because edits become more conservative over time. After controlling for it, a statistically detectable but small residual effect remains. This points to an open question: whether near-ceiling similarity reflects preserved purpose or a measurement tool that cannot detect the significance of small, localized edits. We present this work as a first look and outline next steps.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency. Existing benchmarks focus on domain knowledge and question answering, largely overlooking intrinsic quality review for professional documents. Such reviews rely heavily on human experts, making them costly and difficult to scale. To bridge this gap, we introduce GB/T-Bench, the first benchmark for the structured review of national standard documents. Its GB/T Review Taxonomy is a hierarchical schema covering document structure, scope alignment, normative modality, terminology consistency, and normative references, with 25 diagnosable error types. A controllable counterexample generation mechanism combines deterministic rules and constrained LLM rewriting to process 488 documents into 7,306 traceable review error instances for evaluation. We also develop a diagnosis-oriented evaluation protocol requiring exact matches on error location, review dimension, and error type, plus document-level coverage metrics. We further propose GB/T-Reviewer, a multi-agent framework that converts review knowledge into specialized skills and coordinates global inspection, targeted diagnosis, rule scanning, and result verification. Experiments with 14 mainstream LLMs reveal a substantial human-LLM gap: the strongest model achieves only 0.3280 CMCS versus 0.6640 for experts. GB/T-Reviewer raises the best CMCS to 0.5094, showing the value of structured skill coordination for rule-intensive document review. This work paves the way for trustworthy AI in standardization and other high-stakes document domains.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.

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.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

We assess 18 chapter-specific reviews of the ten mathematical results announced by OpenAI on 1 August 2026, alongside review standards, Lean formalizations, subsequent research, and mathematical references. The article audits this review record without claiming a complete reconstruction of all ten proofs. No confirmed substantive mathematical error in a principal result remains in the examined assessments, although review depth varies and some dependencies remain partly checked. Chapter 8 presents the strongest reservation: a specialist review requests major revision of compressed analytic arguments. In Chapter 6, an apparent polarity error was withdrawn after an overbar lost during PDF extraction was recovered from the typeset source. Subsequent research independently reuses the Chapter 3 proof mechanism and confirms that Connes's rigidity conjecture is false, without independently reproducing Chapter 4's stronger infinite-family result. Among the cited follow-ups, Chapter 7 receives the strongest direct theorem-level corroboration through a stronger hardness theorem. Related equality results in Chapter 8 do not verify the analytic inequality proof. Some follow-ups disclose material AI assistance. We argue that confidence should combine formal checking, human reconstruction, independent mathematical use, and a public record supporting correction of both proofs and reviews.

LLM code reviewers often estimate patch risk and make approval decisions in one prompt. A probability should depend on evidence; costs should determine the action taken from it. We test whether four deployed reviewer interfaces preserve this separation using 15,792 responses on 720 candidate patches, with one that passed and one that failed an archived test harness for each of 360 repository issues. In matched calls with the patch and monitor evidence fixed, replacing an equal-cost policy with a 10:1 false-accept policy changes reported failure probabilities by 13.6 to 16.9 percentage points on average. For every reviewer, the actions returned under the high-cost prompt are worse than rejecting all patches. Applying the same high-cost rule to probabilities elicited under equal costs reduces loss for all four systems, showing that probability elicitation itself contributes to the excess loss. We also evaluate a modular pipeline that elicits risk without policy information, combines an independent monitor score, and applies costs in code. Relative to calibrated reviewer-only scores, the pipeline improves average probability accuracy and, at equal costs, reduces mean loss by .073 per issue while accepting 58 to 68% of patches. At 10:1, it accepts none and matches reject-all. Downstream policy can therefore change the probability it is meant to use, motivating separate evaluation of risk, outside evidence, and action.

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday software, making its integration into mobile apps inevitable. However, AI mobile app developers are not always versed in security and privacy best practices, leaving users to monitor their own security and understand how apps use their data. App reviews capture real user experiences, helping others make informed decisions before downloading. This paper presents a machine learning model for classifying AI app reviews into permission-related categories. Because user reviews are unstructured, assembling a conventional labeled training set is difficult. To address this, AI-generated security and permission reviews are used to identify relevant training examples from a large corpus of human-written reviews, eliminating the need for manual annotation. The proposed approach classified permission reviews with an accuracy of 82%. Analysis shows that users organise their concerns by sentiment toward the requesting app rather than specific permission types, with implications for users, developers, and platform administrators.

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.

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

Scientific figure assessment in peer review differs fundamentally from general image quality evaluation: a figure must be visually legible, faithfully support the manuscript's claims, and communicate evidence with a clear visual hierarchy. However, if we apply traditional image assessment methods to scientific figure quality assessment, limitations emerge: classic IQA models capture perceptual quality or aesthetics but cannot judge whether a figure serves the paper's scientific argument; CLIP-based methods assess generic image-text correspondence, yet lack understanding of manuscript context; and zero-shot LLM/VLM judges, when repurposed for figure scoring, often yield overly concentrated scores with limited fusion of visual and textual evidence. We introduce an annotated dataset of 3,857 scientific figures from peer-reviewed conference papers, each rated along four peer-review-oriented dimensions: Clarity, Relevance, Informativeness, and Structure. We propose SciFigAlign, a fine-tuned multimodal scorer that grounds figure quality assessment in manuscript evidence. Given a figure crop, caption, citing paragraphs, and light paper context, SciFigAlign fine-tunes CLIP and SciBERT end-to-end with per-modality cross-attention and CubeMLP fusion, jointly optimizing SmoothL1 regression with a within-paper ranking hinge loss. Under paper-level splits, SciFigAlign achieves a macro MAE of 0.3524 and a within-paper pairwise accuracy of 81.64% on the test set with n = 396, a 59% relative error reduction over the best LLM-as-judge baseline with MAE 0.864. Ablations confirm that manuscript-grounded inputs, citing-context denoising, and ranking supervision are all critical, showing that scientific figure assessment requires learned alignment between visual content and manuscript evidence rather than prompting alone, even with state-of-the-art VLMs.

The rapid growth of scholarly literature has made identifying relevant publications increasingly difficult, and conventional search systems still depend heavily on manually formulated queries and effortful manual inspection. Generative large language models (LLMs) offer a more flexible alternative, supporting literature retrieval and the screening of candidate studies against eligibility criteria. This chapter surveys 34 peer-reviewed papers applying generative LLMs to these two tasks, identified via a Boolean search over the OpenAIRE Graph (1,589 records screened to 34 inclusions). Reviewed studies are characterised by LLMs employed, model access and adaptation, prompting and architectural techniques, ground-truth sources, and evaluation metrics.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist scientific project planning and proposal evaluation. One-page project plans were independently generated for eight expert-conceived research projects in physics, astrophysics, and cosmology by human researchers and three contemporary LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek; mid-2025 models, used with their default tool access). The resulting 32 proposals were blindly evaluated by four human reviewers and two newer frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT Pro 5.5) using a four-aspect evaluation rubric. Reviewers were also asked to identify whether each proposal was written by a human or an AI. Human reviewers rated human- and AI-written proposals similarly overall, whereas both AI reviewers scored AI-written proposals about one point higher (on a five-point scale) than human-written proposals. Human reviewers correctly identified human- and AI-written proposals 72% and 79% of the time, respectively, while both AI reviewers correctly classified all 32 proposals (100%). These results suggest that current LLMs can produce project plans comparable to human-written ones in the eyes of human reviewers, but that AI reviewers show a systematic preference for AI-generated proposals. Our results suggest caution when deploying LLMs widely in proposal preparation and evaluation.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence-generated content (AIGC) is reshaping video production and circulation, exposing children to an increasing volume of AIGC videos. Unlike traditionally produced videos, AIGC videos often exhibit greater uncertainty in visual details, narrative coherence, and content expression, which may introduce developmentally inappropriate risks for children. However, existing video safety research is largely designed for general violation detection from an adult perspective and remains insufficient for identifying the fine-grained, implicit, and context-dependent risks that children may encounter when viewing AIGC videos. To address this gap, we study child-oriented AIGC video reviewing, making three contributions. First, we construct CAVSR, a benchmark of 605 real-world videos collected from multiple platforms, and develop a hierarchical risk taxonomy comprising 6 top-level categories and 26 fine-grained labels to support systematic evaluation of children's viewing risks. Second, we propose QVRS-E, a knowledge- and experience-augmented video reviewing framework that combines multi-agent collaboration with expert and experiential knowledge to support targeted evidence acquisition and fact-grounded reviewing decisions. Third, extensive experiments demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the reviewing of child-related risks integrated with vision-language models, and yields more robust review reports.

We present AutoJourn, a demonstration system for multi-perspective news generation and bias-aware evaluation using large language models (LLMs). The system tackles three core challenges in responsible automated journalism: extracting diverse perspectives from unstructured social media discussions, generating summaries that preserve viewpoint diversity, and detecting or mitigating bias in AI-generated news. The pipeline integrates advanced prompt engineering with optional retrieval augmentation to produce semantically diverse perspective sets, a multi-perspective summarisation module that merges conflicting viewpoints into balanced summaries, and a bias analysis suite supporting sentence-level bias detection and type classification in the generated news article, and automatic neutralisation. Users can inspect perspective clusters, compare stance-specific summaries, generate news articles, and apply bias-aware rewrites directly in the interface. We evaluate each component with intrinsic metrics -- semantic diversity, summary quality, and bias reduction and show improvements over strong baselines while maintaining content fidelity. A live, publicly accessible demo accompanies the paper to facilitate reproducibility and further research on socially responsible automated journalism.

This review provides an overview of recent advancements in automated segmentation methods on Computed Tomography (CT) for two types of cardiac fat: Epicardial adipose Tissue (EAT) and Pericardial Adipose Tissue (PAT). These fat deposits, separated by the pericardium, have been linked to various cardiovascular diseases, with EAT receiving the most research attention. Their complex anatomical context makes manual quantification highly time-consuming and prone to considerable inter-observer variability. Automated methods effectively address these complications, offering a more efficient and consistent solution. This study encompasses a broad range of methods, spanning AI as well as non-AI approaches. Additionally, it presents the remaining challenges, including the need for larger annotated public datasets and optimized attenuation thresholds for contrast-enhanced CT. It is demonstrated that automated methods are able to achieve segmentation results comparable to the quality of human annotation, proving their potential as a clinical tool for discovering new biomarkers and enhancing patient outcomes.

Introduction. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs must document their scholars' research impact, but assembling each scholar's record by hand takes staff an estimated 15 hours and does not scale to a full cohort. An artificial intelligence (AI) agent could serve as a tool to gather scholar data across platforms and disciplines. Methods. We built a human-in-the-loop AI agent that assembles a dossier of sourced evidence for each scholar and drafts one-sentence Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact summaries for staff review. We evaluated it in the impact-reporting workflow of one CTSA hub across 10 career-development (KL2/K12) scholars. Two evaluation staff independently coded all 507 findings as accept, edit, or reject; the primary measure was the unanimous usable rate, defined as the share both accepted or edited. Results. Both reviewers accepted or edited 81.7% of the agent's findings. Reviewers each spent a median of 14 minutes per scholar, replacing an estimated 15 hours of manual assembly. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.43 on the usable-versus-reject decision). A profile discovery study found the agent's recall close to human search. The agent's impact evidence spanned all four TSBM domains, and about a third of the reviewed findings fell in non-scholarly categories that routine processes tend to miss. Reviewers rated synthesis accuracy 4.5 and usefulness 4.8 on a 5-point scale. Conclusions. A human-in-the-loop AI agent can serve as the first-pass author of a scholar's impact record, shifting staff from collecting and writing to reviewing, and making cohort-scale impact reporting feasible.

Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays. This study proposes a generative AI-assisted summarization framework to improve long-form essay representation while maintaining scoring reliability. Using the ASAP 2.0 dataset, we generate controlled-length summaries with three GPT-5 variants (GPT-5, GPT-5 mini, and GPT-5 nano) and use them as inputs for downstream AES models. To preserve original writing signals, handcrafted linguistic features extracted from full essays are integrated with summary representations to form a hybrid framework. The approach is evaluated in terms of scoring performance, summarization quality, and computational cost. Scoring reliability is measured using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), while summary quality is assessed through lexical overlap, semantic similarity, information retention, and redundancy metrics. Results show that GPT-5 mini achieves the highest agreement with human ratings, whereas GPT-5 produces the strongest summarization quality. Summary quality decreases for higher-scoring essays, indicating that more complex writing is more difficult to compress without information loss. These findings reveal trade-offs among model capacity, summary fidelity, cost efficiency, and preservation of educational constructs. This study provides an initial controlled evaluation of GPT-based summarization for AES and identifies important baselines and ablation studies required for future generalization. Overall, generative AI summarization offers a promising approach for scalable writing assessment while requiring careful validation of information preservation and fairness.

Can large language models perform technical comprehension of computer architecture papers--not summarization, but structured critique that names the core mechanism, surfaces buried assumptions, and connects a contribution beyond its own scope? We study Gauntlet, an open-source pipeline that analyzes a paper through five independent expert-persona reviewers and an adversarial synthesis stage. On 20 ISCA 2025 and HPCA 2026 papers, 10 researchers each wrote their own analyses and then judged, for papers other than their own, the human analysis against Gauntlet's. Across the 20 comparisons evaluators preferred Gauntlet in 15 (human in 4, one tie); its advantage is significant on per-analyst totals (two-sided Wilcoxon, p < 0.001) and largest on Critical Rigor. Where humans win, it is on trust and usefulness rather than depth: a confident wrong claim, a mechanism described but not taught, or unprioritized breadth. A 98-paper automated ablation shows the gain comes from the multi-agent structure: the pipeline beats the same model run as a single rich-persona agent on 96% of papers. We release all analyses, scores, and the rubric as a community resource.

There are two standard ways to spend more compute at test time: let a model reason longer, or sample more attempts and keep one. Both share a hidden limit: they are internal. Every extra token comes from the same frozen weights and the same prompt, so neither can tell the model anything it does not already know. We study a third way, interaction: the model proposes an artifact, an external instrument observes how it actually behaves, and the model revises. Each cycle imports a real observation, so interaction breaks through the ceiling the other two hit. We argue that a single variable governs this third axis, grounding, and that it must hold on both sides of the loop. The feedback that drives revision must come from an instrument that actually observes the flaw, and so must the metric that scores the result. On hard coding tasks at a fixed token budget, reasoning-only and best-of-N sampling both plateau (the latter even when an oracle picks the best sample), while every interaction strategy keeps improving; our proposer-reviewer harness reaches a perfect 100% pass rate with no run-to-run variance, and the gain holds across three model families. On rendered visual artifacts, the usual judge (a vision-language model, or VLM, reading a screenshot) rates 14 of 15 visibly broken figures "perfect," because the screenshot hides the flaws before the judge can see them. A tool that measures the real layout instead shows the loop removing 40-74% of defects across four modalities; and that same VLM, used as the reviewer, makes slide layouts worse where the measuring tool repairs them. Interaction scaling is real and distinct from reasoning and sampling, but only visible when both the feedback and the metric are grounded.

When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.

Worldbuilding, the construction of coherent fictional worlds, is a foundational task in game design and literary creation. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for automated content generation, but their application to worldbuilding faces three challenges: context explosion that grows linearly with the building process, the tension between creative diversity and content consistency, and the absence of automated quality assurance. This paper presents AutoWorldBuilder, a multi-agent collaborative system that addresses these challenges through five integrated components: a structured concept network with conflict detection; a DAG-based hybrid batch scheduler that groups tasks by semantic locality; a four-layer context compression mechanism achieving approximately 90% token reduction; an iterative review system with specialized Auditor agents that improves proposal pass rates from 42% to over 85%; and a skill-driven agent architecture supporting zero-code extension with differentiated temperature configuration. Two experiments across 20 diverse worldbuilding tasks, using GPT-OSS 120B and DeepSeek v3.2 as LLM backends, demonstrate a 95.0% success rate. The system generated 56-103 self-consistent concepts per world in 18-31 minutes with zero-conflict delivery. The architectural patterns validated here, including layer-as-budget compression, semantic-locality scheduling, and separation of generation and review, transfer to the broader class of knowledge-intensive, multi-agent LLM applications.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance ($β= -0.01$ and $0.11$, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations ($β= 0.47$ and $0.50$, both $p < .001$) and how confident they felt working with it ($β= 0.47$ and $0.36$, both $p < .001$). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.

The berth allocation and quay crane assignment problem (BACAP) is a representative port-terminal scheduling problem in maritime transportation and freight logistics, where vessel arrivals, berth positions, service durations, and quay?crane availability are tightly coupled. Under uncertainties such as arrival deviations, handling-time fluctuations, and resource disruptions, schedules optimized under nominal assumptions may become fragile during execution, motivating the study of robust metaheuristic optimization for BACAP in port-terminal operations. Although population-based metaheuristics have been widely used for BACAP and related port-scheduling problems, existing studies remain fragmented in their uncertainty repre?sentations, robustness criteria, search mechanisms, and empir?ical evaluation protocols. To the best of our knowledge, this paper provides the first focused review dedicated to robust population-based metaheuristics for BACAP under uncertainty. We first summarize uncertainty sources and information repre?sentations in BACAP, and then organize existing methods from a mechanism-oriented perspective, covering solution representation and decoding, robust evaluation and selection, robustness-guided search dynamics, and feasibility preservation and recovery. We further present a benchmark suite for uncertain BACAP to support controlled empirical comparison and report illustrative baseline results by combining representative metaheuristics with different robustness strategies. Finally, we identify open chal?lenges related to benchmark extension, robustness-aware search design, time-adaptive robustness, and non-stationary uncertainty.

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information (QI) are rapidly co-evolving. AI is becoming a practical tool for learning, designing, controlling, and verifying quantum systems, while QI offers new computational models, representational structures, and learning-theoretic questions for AI. This survey reviews the interface from both directions. In the AI for QI direction, we organize recent progress around the central tasks of extracting information from limited measurements, training and discovering quantum algorithms, stabilizing noisy hardware, automating experimental and programming workflows, and extending learning-based methods to sensing and networking. In the QI for AI direction, we examine how quantum computation and quantum-inspired structures affect learning through algorithmic speedups, expressivity, trainability, generalization, neural-network design, and tensor-network representations. We close by identifying cross-cutting challenges in reproducibility, scalability, hardware realism, and co-design, arguing that progress will depend on tighter integration of theory, experiment, and hybrid quantum--classical systems.

Policy-grounded document review requires determining whether a target document complies with organization-specific policies, guidelines, or playbooks. While large language models can assist with policy interpretation and document analysis, end-to-end prompting leaves the applied policy logic implicit, making compliance decisions difficult to inspect, update, and test. We present PolicyGuard, a neuro-symbolic framework for policy-grounded document compliance review. PolicyGuard converts organizational policy guidance into an executable review engine consisting of typed relational logic rules and atom-level extraction questions. During review, LLMs answer these local questions using retrieved document evidence, and a symbolic evaluator applies the formal rules to detect non-compliance. We instantiate and evaluate PolicyGuard on company-specific NDA compliance review, where contract clauses must be checked against organization-specific negotiation policies. By separating policy formalization, local document interpretation, and symbolic compliance evaluation, PolicyGuard makes document review more explicit, maintainable, and systematically testable.

Residual connections add every sublayer's proposed update with a fixed coefficient of one; the network never evaluates whether an update is reliable before committing it. Drawing on the human-factors principle of independent verification, we introduce Review Residuals, which scale each update by a learned, input-dependent gate conditioned on both the current state and the proposed update: h_l = h_{l-1} + r_l * u_l with r_l = sigmoid(W[RMSNorm(h_{l-1}), RMSNorm(u_l)]). Conditioning the gate on the update is the property that distinguishes it from prior gated and scaled residuals. We report two findings. First, a depth-stability result: a convex (Highway-style) form of the gate reintroduces vanishing gradients and fails to train beyond ~20 layers, whereas the additive, identity-preserving form trains stably at all depths we tested. Second, an emergence-with-scale result: trained from scratch across five sizes (60M-1B parameters, multi-seed), Review Residuals show no advantage at small scale but at 590M significantly outperform both a parameter-matched Highway gate and a parameter-matched standard residual (p<0.05), with a larger advantage at 1B. The benefit grows with model size rather than shrinking.

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

With rapidly improving capabilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in many complex real-world tasks. Beyond requiring in-depth knowledge and reasoning skills, many of these tasks exhibit a high degree of subjectivity and require that the outputs of the model can be trusted. While a lot of progress has been made to train better models, decision-making algorithms have received less attention. In this work, we present and evaluate various uncertainty-aware decision-making algorithms based on Bayesian decision theory and risk-averse decision making on the tasks of tutoring and automatic peer reviewing. Concretely, we take uncertainty over tutoring strategies and review scores into account when generating a tutor response or review and use conformal prediction to provide guarantees over strategy and score. We find empirically that these algorithms can improve the utility of the generations but need to be carefully implemented when ambiguity is high. For example, risk-averse rules can degrade performance by optimizing for generic outputs, while Bayesian methods tend to perform better. Our work uses techniques from decision theory to improve LLM-based decision-making and outlines open challenges for the community.

Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.

Recursive self-training can degrade neural generative models when generated data is reused without fresh human data or external quality control. We study this risk in code LLMs, where AI-generated code can enter real repositories, later become training data, and create a repository-scale self-training loop. While software development traditionally interrupts this loop through pull-request review, tests, compilation, and human approval, AI coding tools now produce code faster than humans can review it, and code review itself is increasingly automated by AI systems. We therefore compare three recursive fine-tuning regimes: no review, Human-gate review using model-independent filters such as compilation and static quality checks, and AI-self-gate review using the code LLM's own signals such as perplexity and binary self-scoring. Across multiple code LLMs and benchmarks, no review collapses fastest, Human-gate filters slow but do not stop collapse, and AI-self-gate filters can look strong early but later lose their filtering effect. In the clearest case, the binary self-gate enters a rubber-stamp regime where acceptance scores rise while benchmark correctness falls. We explain this behavior by formulating review as gated distributional reweighting, proving that AI self-gating degenerates to ungated self-training under a self-confirming acceptance condition, and giving a spectral analysis of representation-level covariance concentration under recursive retraining. These results suggest that stable recursive code LLM training requires exogenous verification rather than model-coupled self-review.

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.

Commercial NLP treats the shopping chatbot as a recommender or a conversion tool: its job is to match a user to a catalogue entry and close a sale. We argue that the arrival of agent-native micro-payment rails (e.g., x402, AP2) changes what is scarce. When the buyer is an autonomous agent that can investigate exhaustively, the bottleneck is no longer matching products but acquiring trustworthy, decision-relevant information about them. We envision agentic e-commerce as a micro-transaction market for verified information: buyer agents spend fractions of a cent to progressively unlock seller- and reviewer-supplied data -- service histories, third-party test reports, bills of materials, audited sales and support metrics -- paid for a la carte under a freemium model, with reviewer trust scored reputationally. We sketch the architecture of such a market and argue that it rewards genuine product quality and yields truer competition than ranking-based storefronts. We then translate the vision into concrete NLP problems -- cost-optimal information acquisition, data pricing and negotiation, real-time entity resolution, grounded value exchange, and privacy-preserving persona modelling -- and argue that these, not chat fluency, deserve the field's attention.

Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) architectures improve inference-time scaling by organizing multiple LLM agents into layered reasoning pipelines. However, existing MoA variants fail to sustain gains as depth increases, exhibiting degradation, early plateauing, or saturation. We propose ReM-MoA, a memory-augmented MoA framework that sustains scaling through two mechanisms: (1) a Ranked Reasoning Memory that persistently stores and ranks reasoning traces from all layers using a comparative Reviewer Agent, and (2) a Curated Diversified Memory Routing scheme that exposes different agents to distinct combinations of successful and failed traces, preserving exploration diversity while propagating high-quality reasoning. We further introduce an optional multi-domain Reviewer distillation pipeline that improves ranking quality through frontier-model supervision. Across five reasoning benchmarks spanning math, formal logic, code, knowledge, and commonsense, ReM-MoA consistently outperforms prior MoA variants across both depth and width scaling, and its advantage widens with depth, establishing structured cross-layer reasoning memory as a key missing mechanism for scalable multi-agent inference.

Mining sentiment information from the textual content of peer review comments offers valuable insights into the scientific evaluation process. However, previous studies are often constrained by coarse-grained analysis and the lack of differentiation across review rounds. Notably, the dynamic shifts in reviewers' focus and sentiment tendencies throughout multiple review stages remain underexplored. To address this gap, the present study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments and examines their correlation with the number of review rounds. We begin by segmenting the multi-round review comments of 11,063 accepted papers from Nature Communications and identifying fine-grained review aspect clusters. A manually annotated corpus of approximately 5,000 review sentences is then constructed. Using this dataset, we train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models. Among them, the LCF-BERT-CDM model achieves the best performance, with a Macro-F1 score of 82.65%. Subsequent statistical analysis reveals a consistent trend: as the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline. Correlation analysis further indicates that aspect sentiment scores are negatively associated with the total number of review rounds. Key aspects exhibiting stronger correlations include "experiments", "research significance" and "result analysis".