Review

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Soft mobile robots have emerged as a promising area of research with potential applications in various disciplines including but not limited to search-and-rescue, service, surveillance, explorations, and manufacturing. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the current state of soft mobile robot research, focusing on wheelless terrestrial locomotive systems. We include past and present developments in locomotion strategies, actuation methods, modeling approaches, and control systems. Further, we identify key research challenges that must be overcome to enable the widespread adoption of soft mobile robots in various applications. Overall, this article provides a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners interested in the field of soft mobile robots and soft robotics.

Self-supervised learning (SSL) is increasingly used in medical image analysis to reduce dependence on costly expert annotations by learning transferable representations from unlabeled data. However, SSL performance depends not only on model architecture, but also on whether the pretext task preserves information required by the downstream clinical objective. This review presents a task-oriented synthesis of SSL methods for medical imaging, focusing on how pretext-task design interacts with imaging modality, label availability, and downstream performance. We analyze 75 studies published from 2017 to 2025 and organize them into four paradigms: contrastive learning, non-contrastive and predictive learning, generative and reconstruction-based learning, and hybrid learning. Rather than cataloging methods chronologically, we examine how these paradigms support classification, segmentation, detection, reconstruction, and regression. The evidence suggests that no SSL strategy is universally optimal. Contrastive objectives generally encourage global discriminative representations and are well aligned with classification, but may underrepresent subtle or localized pathology. Spatial prediction, masked modeling, and reconstruction-based objectives better preserve anatomical structure and are often more suitable for segmentation and dense prediction. Hybrid methods can provide balanced representations, although they increase training complexity. Across modalities, SSL is most beneficial in low-label and few-shot regimes, but its effectiveness depends on modality-aware augmentation, pathology-preserving corruption, and clinically meaningful evaluation. We conclude with practical design guidelines and identify open challenges, including pathology-aware pretext tasks, resource-efficient training for high-dimensional data, and standardized evaluation protocols.

There are not enough established benchmarks for the task fo speech summarization. Creating new benchmarks demands human annotation, as LLMs could embed systemic errors and bias into datasets. We test ten annotation workflows varying input modality (audio, transcript, or both) and the inclusion of editing (self or peer-editing) to investigate potential quality tradeoffs from using human annotators to summarize audio. We compare human audio-based summaries to human transcript-based summaries to track the impact of the different information modalities on summary quality. We also compare the human outputs against four LLM benchmarks (three text, one audio) to examine whether human-written summaries are less informative than highly fluent automated outputs. We find that audio-based summaries are less informative and more compressed than transcript summaries. However, iterative peer-editing with audio mitigates this difference, enabling audio-based summaries to be as informative as their transcript counterparts and LLM summaries. These findings validate iterative peer-editing among human annotators for the creation of benchmarks informed by both lexical and prosodic information. This enables crucial dataset collection even in setting where transcripts are unavailable.

Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code review remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. We address this gap by treating review effectiveness as an outcome of the full code review lifecycle rather than a single stage, proposing a framework that carries context across stage boundaries. We propose a future vision for code review in which reviewers transition from manual inspectors into supervisory operators of agents. In this vision, staged, AI-powered workflows aim to align the pace of code generation with shared understanding and accountable engineering. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices, identify challenges in traditional code review systems, and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. Finally, we identify key adoption challenges and outline research directions for evaluation, governance, and responsible human-AI collaboration.

Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and consent. The final dataset included 56 analyzable responses from authors of 40 papers; closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, and 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers. This perceived added value translated into action: 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version. However, the authors did not treat the AI review as equivalent to a human review. They generally trusted it less than the human reviews and found human feedback clearer, even though 25.0% described at least some human reviews as not very useful. Reported problems with the AI review were usually limited: 51.8% reported minor inaccuracies, while 16.1% reported clearly incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant comments. Support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool: 96.4% said they would use AI as an internal review tool before future submissions, 89.3% preferred advance notice that AI would be used in review, and 76.8% favored explicit consent before use.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), based on large-language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, has taken organizations, academia, and the public by storm. In particular, impressive GenAI capabilities such as summarization of large text corpora, question-answering, data extraction, and translation, carry profound implications for the conduct of literature reviews. This impacts science, organizations and the general public, as all can benefit from GenAI-supported literature reviews. Building on the technical foundations of GenAI and grounded in established methodological discourse, this work outlines approaches for conducting literature reviews using both general-purpose (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) and specialized GenAI tools (e.g., Consensus, Elicit). We provide illustrative examples of prompts and suggest methodologically-sound literature review strategies. Throughout this perspective paper, we adopt a balanced approach considering both the opportunities and the risks of relying on GenAI in the conduct of literature reviews. We conclude by discussing philosophical questions related to the effects of GenAI on long-term scientific progress, and also present fruitful opportunities for research on improving the core of GenAI's technology-its architecture and training data-and suggest open issues in GenAI-based literature reviews methodology.

Editors and reviewers are expected to ensure that manuscripts cite relevant, accurate, current, and ethically appropriate literature, yet manuscript-level citation auditing remains largely manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Citation context, metadata quality, self-citation patterns, and bibliographic integrity all affect whether a reference appropriately supports a local claim. We present CitePrism, a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing that combines LLM-assisted contextual reasoning, embedding-based semantic similarity, metadata verification, integrity-oriented flags, and human-in-the-loop analyst review. CitePrism extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts, and supports configurable threshold-based triage. In a preliminary validation on a single case-study manuscript with 104 references from pavement engineering, agreement with human binary relevance labels reached Cohen's kappa = 0.429. At operating threshold tau = 17, CitePrism flagged all human-labeled irrelevant citations, while also producing false positives requiring analyst review. These results suggest that CitePrism may support conservative editorial screening and citation-quality triage, but they do not establish general editorial performance. CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system. Broader validation across manuscripts, domains, annotators, baselines, and deployment settings is required before operational use.

Scientific peer reviews frequently contain conflicting expert judgments, and the increasing scale of conference submissions makes it challenging for Area Chairs and editors to reliably identify and interpret such disagreements. Existing approaches typically frame reviewer disagreement as binary contradiction detection over isolated sentence pairs, abstracting away the review-level context and obscuring differences in the severity of evaluative conflict. In this work, we introduce a fine-grained formulation of reviewer contradiction analysis that operates over full peer reviews by explicitly identifying contradiction evidence spans and assigning graded disagreement intensity scores. To support this task, we present RevCI, an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels. We further propose IMPACT, a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication to model reviewer contradictions and their intensity. To support efficient deployment, we distill IMPACT into TIDE, a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass. Experimental results show that IMPACT substantially outperforms strong single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines in both evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE achieves competitive performance at significantly lower inference cost.

Machine Learning (ML) models trained on complex health surveys such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) often ignore primary sampling units, stratification variables, and sampling weights. This practice violates the independence assumptions of standard evaluation methods. As a result, estimates become biased, uncertainty is underestimated, and fairness assessments fail to reflect population-level disparities. We propose Survey-aware Machine Learning (SaML), a nine-step guideline that incorporates survey design metadata across the ML lifecycle. Through a scoping review of 16 methodological papers, we summarize existing work on weighted model training, design-based cross-validation, and survey-adjusted performance evaluation. We also identify gaps in hyperparameter tuning and deployment. We provide task-specific guidance that clarifies which steps are required for different analytical objectives. SaML provides a checklist for valid population inference from survey data.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators of AI systems, including in high-stakes applications. In this role, LLMs are used to generate judgments about the quality, appropriateness, or even safety of model outputs. This approach is motivated by practical constraints. Expert human ratings are costly and difficult to scale, whereas LLM ratings can be produced quickly at low cost. However, current approaches to deploying LLM evaluators are ad hoc, typically limited to reporting agreement metrics between human and LLM judges as a justification for substitution of human ratings, and lack a formal basis for study design. This paper (1) shifts the role of the LLM judge from substitutive to auxiliary, and (2) formulates the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm as one of augmenting human evaluation through a two-stage sampling design, where LLM evaluations are measured for all observations at the first stage and human ratings are partially observed for a subsample at the second stage. We propose to use a doubly robust estimator from the missing data literature, which takes advantage of the robustness property against the prediction model, since the missingness model is known by design. Using the asymptotic variance of this estimator, we propose how sample sizes of human and LLM ratings can be determined to achieve a targeted level of power. We also show that a study can be efficiently designed by allocating more human ratings for types of evaluations where the predictability of LLM ratings is not high. To the best of our knowledge, there is very little guidance on how much human oversight should be retained when validating benchmarks.

Despite the rapid development of AI reviewers, evaluating such systems remains challenging: metrics favor overlap with human reviews over correctness. However, since human reviews often cover only a subset of salient issues and sometimes contain mistakes, they are unreliable as gold references. To address this, we build category-specific benchmark subsets and skip evaluation when the corresponding human reviews are missing to strengthen Completeness. We also leverage reviewer--author--meta-review discussions as expert annotations and filter unreliable reviews accordingly to strengthen Correctness. Finally, we introduce CoCoReviewBench, which curates 3,900 papers from ICLR and NeurIPS to enable reliable and fine-grained evaluation of AI reviewers. Analysis shows that AI reviewers remain limited in correctness and are prone to hallucinations, and highlights reasoning models as more effective reviewers, motivating further directions for improving AI reviewers. Benchmarks and models are available at https://github.com/hexuandeng/CoCoReviewBench.

Tourism is a high-stakes setting for conversational recommender systems (CRS): a plausible-sounding suggestion can waste real money and trip time once a traveler acts on it. Existing CRS benchmarks primarily evaluate systems with a single Recall@k score over entity mentions, and tourism-specific resources add spatial or knowledge-graph context, yet none of them couple multi-turn recommendation with verbatim review-span evidence and rejection recovery. This leaves an evaluation gap for tourism recommendation that is simultaneously trustworthy, verifiable, and adaptive: recommend the right point of interest (POI) for multi-aspect preferences (such as cuisine, price, atmosphere, walking distance), justify each suggestion with verifiable evidence from prior visitors so the traveler can act without trial and error, and recover when the first recommendation is rejected mid-dialogue. We introduce TRACE, where each item is a multi-turn tourism recommendation dialogue with review-span citations and explicit rejection turns: 10,000 dialogues over 2,400 Yelp POIs and 34,208 reviews across eight U.S. cities, paired with 14 retrieval, planning, and LLM baselines, along with 25 metrics organized under Accuracy, Grounding, and Recovery. Across these baselines, TRACE reveals the Three-Competency Gap: LLM Zero-Shot leads in closed-set Recall@1 and rejection recovery but cites less densely than retrievers; non-LLM retrievers achieve surface-verbatim grounding but with low accuracy; Multi-Review Synthesis fails at recovery. The Grounding Score agrees with human citation precision (Spearman rho=+0.80, p<10^-20), and paired t-tests reproduce the per-baseline ranking (p<0.01 on the dominant contrasts). TRACE reframes accountable tourism recommendation as a joint target (right POI, verifiable evidence, adaptive repair) rather than a single-axis leaderboard.

This intervention study investigates the use of counterarguments in writing for critical thinking by students in the context of Generative AI (GenAI). This is especially as risks of cheating and cognitive offloading exist with the use of GenAI. We presented 36 students in a particular university course with 4 carefully selected thesis statements (from a set of popular debates) to write about anyone of them. We used six established rubrics (focus, logic, content, style, correctness and reference) to conduct three human assessments (two student peer-reviews and one experienced teacher) per writeup on a 5-point Likert scale for all the qualified samples (n) of 35 submissions (after disqualifying one for irregularity). Using the same rubrics and guidelines, we also assessed the submissions using six frontier LLMs as judges. Our mixed-method design included qualitative open-ended feedback per assessment and quantitative methods. The results reveal that (1) the students' self-written counterarguments to AI-generated content contains logic, among other things, which is a key component of critical thinking, and (2) GenAI can be successfully used at scale to assess students' written work, based on clear rubrics, and these assessments generally align with human assessments as shown with Gwets AC2 inter-rater reliability values of 0.33 for all the models except one.

As LLMs become increasingly capable, editorial boards and program committees are growing concerned about reviewers who fully outsource peer review to commercial chatbots. This concern stems from prior findings that current chatbots lack the independent critical thinking and depth of reasoning required to assess scientific novelty. One promising direction for mitigating this concern is to embed hidden instructions into manuscripts that disrupt or alter chatbot-generated reviews. However, existing methods remain intuitive and fragile, as they typically rely on homogeneous payloads injected in an inter-stream manner, rendering them susceptible to sanitization or neutralization. In this paper, we identify End-to-End Review Outsourcing as an emerging threat and propose IntraGuard, a black-box, venue-agnostic defense framework grounded in the structural--visual decoupling inherent to the PDF. Designed for committee-side deployment, IntraGuard supports both explicit strategies that trigger refusal or warning signals, and implicit strategies that embed predefined textual markers into the generated review. These strategies can be deployed via any of three intra-stream injection mechanisms, each of which seamlessly embeds heterogeneous defensive text objects within the PDF's underlying structure without altering its visual presentation. Extensive evaluations across 7 real-world commercial chatbot settings and 12 venues spanning diverse disciplines show that IntraGuard achieves a defense success rate of up to 84%, while preserving peer-review invariance for human reviewers. IntraGuard is lightweight and hardware-independent, incurring an average overhead of only one second per manuscript on a commodity personal computer. We further evaluate 11 adaptive attacks spanning manuscript sanitization and instruction interference, and discuss the implications of constructing ensemble defenses.

Effective peer feedback is essential for developing critical reflection in higher education, yet its impact is often limited by the inconsistent quality of student-generated comments. This paper presents the implementation and deployment of AICoFe (AI-based Collaborative Feedback), a system designed to bridge this gap through a human-centered AI approach. We describe a modular architecture that orchestrates a multi-LLM pipeline, utilizing GPT-4.1-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Llama 3.1, to synthesize quantitative rubric data and qualitative observations into coherent, actionable feedback. Key to the system is a "teacher-in-the-loop" mediation workflow, where educators use specialized Learning Analytics dashboards to curate and refine AI-generated drafts before delivery. Furthermore, we detail the underlying data infrastructure, which employs a hybrid SQL and MongoDB strategy to ensure traceability and manage semi-structured feedback versions.

Coding agents often pass per-prompt safety review yet ship exploitable code when their tasks are decomposed into routine engineering tickets. The challenge is structural: existing safety alignment evaluates overt requests in isolation, leaving models blind to malicious end-states that emerge from sequenced compliance with innocuous-looking requests. We introduce MOSAIC-Bench (Malicious Objectives Sequenced As Innocuous Compliance), a benchmark of 199 three-stage attack chains paired with deterministic exploit oracles on deployed software substrates (10 web-application substrates, 31 CWE classes, 5 programming languages) that treats both exploit ground truth and downstream reviewer protocol as first-class evaluation axes. On this benchmark, nine production coding agents from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Moonshot, Zhipu, and Minimax compose innocuous tickets at 53-86% end-to-end ASR with only two refusals across all staged runs. In a matched direct-prompt experiment over four frontier Claude/Codex agents, vulnerable-output rates fall to 0-20.4%: Claude primarily refuses, while Codex primarily hardens rather than emitting the vulnerable implementation - ticket staging silences both defense modes simultaneously. Downstream, code reviewer agents approve 25.8% of these confirmed-vulnerable cumulative diffs as routine PRs, and a full-context implementation protocol closes only 50% of the staged/direct gap, ruling out context fragmentation as the sole explanation. As a deployable but non-adaptive mitigation, reframing the reviewer as an adversarial pentester reduces evasion across the evaluated reviewer subset; pentester framed evasion ranges from 3.0% to 17.6%, and an open-weight Gemma-4-E4B-it reviewer under this framing detects 88.4% of attacks on the dataset with a 4.6% false-positive rate measured on 608 real-world GitHub PRs.

Patent examination is a complex, multi-stage process requiring both technical expertise and legal reasoning, increasingly challenged by rising application volumes. Prior benchmarks predominantly view patent examination as discriminative classification or static extraction, failing to capture its inherently interactive and iterative nature, similar to the peer review and rebuttal process in academic publishing. In this paper, we introduce PatRe, the first benchmark that models the full patent examination lifecycle, including Office Action generation and applicant rebuttal. PatRe comprises 480 real-world cases and supports both oracle and retrieval-simulated evaluation settings. Our benchmark reframes patent examination as a dynamic, multi-turn process of justification and response. Extensive experiments across various LLMs reveal critical insights into model performance, including differences between proprietary and open-source models, as well as task asymmetries between examiner analysis and applicant-side rebuttal. These findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of LLMs in modeling complex, real-world legal reasoning and technical novelty judgment in patent examination. We release our code and dataset to facilitate future research on patent examination modeling.

This paper benchmarks classical machine learning and deep learning approaches for three-class sentiment classification of Indonesian Spotify reviews. Using 100,000 scraped reviews and 70,155 cleaned samples, the study compares Support Vector Machine, Multinomial Naive Bayes, and Decision Tree models with a two-layer BiLSTM. Both approaches use the same preprocessing pipeline, including slang normalization, stopword removal, and stemming. Decision Tree achieves the best performance among the classical models, while BiLSTM attains the highest weighted F1-score overall but fails on the minority neutral class. The paper concludes that BiLSTM is stronger for overall sentiment detection, whereas machine learning with SMOTE provides more balanced three-class performance.

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

Scientific peer review increasingly struggles to assess reproducibility at the scale and complexity of modern research output. Evaluating reproducibility requires reconstructing experimental dependencies, methodological choices, data flows, and result-generating procedures, which often exceeds what human reviewers can provide. Agentic Reproducibility Assessment (ARA) formalizes reproducibility assessment as a structured reasoning task over scientific documents. Given a paper, ARA extracts a directed workflow graph linking sources, methods, experiments, and outputs, then evaluates its reconstructability using structural and content-based scores for reproducibility assessments. Experiments on 213 ReScience C articles - the largest cross-domain benchmark of human-validated computational reproducibility studies considered to date - demonstrate ARA's generalizability and consistent workflow reconstruction and assessment across LLMs, model temperatures, and scientific domains. ARA achieves ~61% accuracy on three benchmarks, and the highest accuracy reported on ReproBench (60.71% vs. 36.84%) and GoldStandardDB (61.68% vs. 43.56%), highlighting its potential to complement human review at scale and enabling next-generation peer review. Code and Data available: https://github.com/AndresLaverdeMarin/agentic_reproducibility_assessment.

This study presents a comparative analysis between two primary approaches in Natural Language Processing (NLP): Machine Learning (ML) utilizing the PyCaret AutoML framework, and Deep Learning (DL). The evaluation is conducted on a sentiment analysis task using an Indonesian e-commerce review dataset sourced from Hugging Face. The dataset, consisting of 15,000 samples, is partitioned into training, validation, and testing sets. The ML experiments compare LightGBM, Logistic Regression, and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms, whereas the DL experiment implements a Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) architecture. The experimental results demonstrate that the BiLSTM model outperforms all ML models, achieving an accuracy of 98.87% and an F1-Score of 98.87%. Meanwhile, LightGBM emerges as the best-performing ML model with an accuracy of 98.23% in a highly efficient training time. This research proves that the BiLSTM architecture is highly capable of capturing the sequential context of Indonesian review texts, making it the superior model for this specific classification task.

This paper compares Machine Learning and LSTM-based Deep Learning methods for sentiment analysis of Mobile Legends app reviews. Using a dataset of 10,000 reviews labeled as positive, negative, and neutral, the study evaluates traditional models with TF-IDF and PyCaret AutoML and compares them against an LSTM model designed to capture sequential text dependencies. The results show that the LSTM model outperforms the classical Machine Learning baselines, achieving 92% accuracy and a weighted F1-score of 91%. The findings indicate that deep learning is more effective for handling informal and context-dependent user review text.

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.

The volume of scientific manuscripts is growing faster than the capacity to evaluate them, yet the institutions that govern peer review have remained largely unchanged. The result is a widening mismatch: reviewer scarcity, noisier assessments, and declining confidence in editorial decisions. Every scientist wants better reviews, but review quality depends on the total burden, which no single author can shift. To isolate this tension, we provide a game-theoretic thought experiment: a voluntary lottery in which authors accept a chance of random pre-review rejection, reducing reviewer burden and improving the quality of surviving evaluations. We show that a Nash equilibrium emerges in which authors voluntarily enter the lottery. Scientists who care about the literature they read, not just the papers they publish, will opt in, raising the quality of published science for all.

Tool-calling agents are evaluated on tool selection, parameter accuracy, and scope recognition, yet LLM trajectory assessments remain inherently post-hoc. Disconnected from the active execution loop, such assessments identify errors that are usually addressed through prompt-tuning or retraining, and fundamentally cannot course-correct the agent in real time. To close this gap, we move evaluation into the execution loop at inference time: a specialized reviewer agent evaluates provisional tool calls prior to execution, shifting the paradigm from post-hoc recovery to proactive evaluation and error mitigation. In practice, this architecture establishes a clear separation of concerns between the primary execution agent and a secondary review agent. As with any multi-agent system, the reviewer can introduce new errors while correcting others, yet no prior work to our knowledge has systematically measured this tradeoff. To quantify this tradeoff, we introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics: helpfulness measures the percentage of base agent errors that feedback corrects; harmfulness measures the percentage of correct responses that feedback degrades. These metrics directly inform reviewer design by revealing whether a given model or prompt provides net positive value. We evaluate our approach on BFCL (single-turn) and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks. Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o. Automated prompt optimization via GEPA provides an additional +1.5-2.8%. Together, these results demonstrate a core advantage of separating execution and review: the reviewer can be systematically improved through model selection and prompt optimization, without retraining the base agent.

We introduce HalluCiteChecker, a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers. While AI assistant technologies have transformed the academic writing process, including citation recommendation, they have also led to the emergence of hallucinated citations that do not correspond to any existing work. Such citations not only undermine the credibility of scientific papers but also impose an additional burden on reviewers and authors, who must manually verify their validity during the review process. In this study, we formalize hallucinated citation detection as an NLP task and provide a corresponding toolkit as a practical foundation for addressing this problem. Our package is lightweight and can perform verification in seconds on a standard laptop. It can also be executed entirely offline and runs efficiently using only CPUs. We hope that HalluCiteChecker will help reduce reviewer workload and support organizers by enabling systematic pre-review and publication checks. Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI. A demonstration video is available on YouTube.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic peer review, their vulnerability to adversarial hidden prompts, i.e., adversarial instructions embedded in submissions to manipulate outcomes, poses a critical threat to scholarly integrity. We propose SafeReview, a co-evolutionary adversarial training framework for defending LLM-based peer review systems against such attacks. SafeReview jointly trains a Generator model to create sophisticated attack prompts and a Defender model to preserve review integrity under adversarial manipulation. The Generator is optimized to produce increasingly effective prompt injections, while the Defender is strengthened through preference-based training to maintain consistent reviews between clean and attacked submissions. Experimental results show that SafeReview improves robustness against adaptive prompt injection attacks, better preserves paper ranking under attack, and generalizes across attacker architectures compared with static defenses. These results demonstrate the potential of co-evolutionary training as a foundation for securing LLM-assisted peer review.

Diagram question answering (Diagram QA) requires reasoning-level attribution that links each question-answer pair to all visual regions needed to derive the answer, rather than only the region containing the final response. Creating such structured evidence across diagrams, charts, maps, circuits, and infographics is time-consuming, and existing annotation tools tightly couple their interfaces to dataset-specific formats. We present DIAGRAMS, a lightweight, schema-driven review framework that decouples interface logic from dataset-specific JSON structures through an internal meta-schema and dataset adapters. Given an image and QA pair with optional candidate regions, the system performs QA-conditioned evidence selection and proposes the regions required for reasoning. When QA pairs or candidate regions are missing, it generates them and supports human verification and refinement. Across six Diagram QA datasets, model-suggested evidence achieves 85.39% precision and 75.30% recall against reviewer-final selections (micro-averaged). These results indicate that the review-first framework reduces manual region creation while maintaining high agreement with final reasoning-level attributions. We release a public demo and installable package to support dataset auditing, grounded supervision creation, and grounded evaluation.

Context: Software vulnerabilities pose significant security threats to software systems, especially as software is increasingly used across many areas of daily life, including health, government, and finance. Recently, transformer-based models have demonstrated promising results in automatic software vulnerability identification due to their robust contextual modelling and representation learning capabilities. Objectives: While numerous systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have examined machine learning and deep learning methods for identifying vulnerabilities, a more transformer-centric analysis remains to be explored. This SLR critically analysed 80 studies published between 2021 and 2025 that utilised transformer models to identify software vulnerabilities. Methods: Using Kitchenhams SLR guidelines, we methodically evaluate current research from various perspectives, encompassing study trends, datasets and sources, programming languages, transformer frameworks, detection detail levels, assessment metrics, reference models, types of vulnerabilities, and experimental configurations. Results: We classify transformer models into encoder, decoder, and combined architectures and analyse both pre-trained and fine-tuned versions utilized on source code, logs, and smart contracts. The results emphasise prevailing research trends, frequently utilised benchmarks, and main baselines. It also uncovers crucial technical issues like data imbalance, interpretability, scalability, and generalization across programming languages. Conclusion: By integrating current evidence and recognising unaddressed research areas, this SLR provides a consolidated resource for researchers and professionals seeking to develop more reliable, precise, and interpretable transformer-based vulnerability identification systems.

Automated code review (ACR) bots are increasingly used in industrial software development to assist developers during pull request (PR) review. As adoption grows, a key challenge is how to evaluate the usefulness of bot-generated comments reliably and at scale. In practice, such evaluation often relies on developer actions and annotations that are shaped by contextual and organizational factors, complicating their use as objective ground truth. We examine the feasibility and limitations of automating the evaluation of LLM-powered ACR bots in an industrial setting. We analyze an industrial dataset from Beko comprising 2,604 bot-generated PR comments, each labeled by software engineers as fixed/wontFix. Two automated evaluation approaches, G-Eval and an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline, are applied using both binary decisions and a 0-4 Likert-scale formulation, enabling a controlled comparison against developer-provided labels. Across Gemini-2.5-pro, GPT-4.1-mini, and GPT-5.2, both evaluation strategies achieve only moderate alignment with human labels. Agreement ratios range from approximately 0.44 to 0.62, with noticeable variation across models and between binary and Likert-scale formulations, indicating sensitivity to both model choice and evaluation design. Our findings highlight practical limitations in fully automating the evaluation of ACR bot comments in industrial contexts. Developer actions such as resolving or ignoring comments reflect not only comment quality, but also contextual constraints, prioritization decisions, and workflow dynamics that are difficult to capture through static artifacts. Insights from a follow-up interview with a software engineering director further corroborate that developer labeling behavior is strongly influenced by workflow pressures and organizational constraints, reinforcing the challenges of treating such signals as objective ground truth.

The increasing scale and variability of peer review in scholarly venues has created an urgent need for systematic, interpretable, and extensible tools to assess review quality. We present PeeriScope, a modular platform that integrates structured features, rubric-guided large language model assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality along multiple dimensions. Designed for openness and integration, PeeriScope provides both a public interface and a documented API, supporting practical deployment and research extensibility. The demonstration illustrates its use for reviewer self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing, and it enables the continued development of quality evaluation methods within scientific peer review. PeeriScope is available both as a live demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peeriscope and via API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peeriscope.

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.

Code review is central to software engineering education but hard to scale in capstone projects due to tight deadlines, uneven peer feedback, and limited prior experience. We investigate an LLM-as-reviewer integrated directly into GitHub pull requests (human-in-the-loop) across two cohorts (more than 100 students, 2023--2024). Using a mixed-methods design -- GitHub data, reflective reports, and a targeted survey -- we examine engagement and responsiveness as behavioral indicators of self-regulated learning processes. Quantitatively, the 2024 cohort produced more iterative activity (1176 vs. 581 PRs), while technical issues observed in 2023 (227 failed AI attempts) dropped to zero after tool and instructional refinements. Despite different adoption levels (93% vs. 50% of teams using the tool), responsiveness was stable: 32% (2023) and 33% (2024) of successfully AI-reviewed PRs were followed by subsequent commits on the same PR. Qualitatively, students used the LLM's structured comments to focus reviews and discuss code quality, while guidance reduced over-reliance. We contribute: (i) an in-workflow design for an AI reviewer that scaffolds learning while mitigating cognitive offloading; (ii) a repeated cross sectional comparison across two cohorts in authentic settings; (iii) a mixed-methods analysis combining objective GitHub metrics with student self-reports; and (iv) evidence-based pedagogical recommendations for responsible, student-led AI-assisted review.

While mechanistic interpretability (MI) has produced important insights into neural network internals, the field has yet to establish a standardized system to audit experiments. As such, many of its findings remain underutilized in safety-critical applications such as medical AI and autonomous systems, as stakeholders cannot certify their validity. Recent work demonstrates this concretely: two papers found conflicting conclusions for the same behavior, and a third study revealed that both were partially correct but incomparable due to methodological inconsistencies. Without standardized auditing, such ambiguities hinder adoption in high-stakes contexts requiring strong correctness guarantees. We call for the MI community to work towards developing a novel reviewing system that complements peer review via: (1) Continuous reviewing supported by a \emph{Collaborative Reviewing Platform} where meta-science results and discussions (such as critiques, negative results, post-hoc extensions, reproductions, replications, and partial results) that fit outside of papers are organized and discussed, allowing for comments and revisions to be made at any time (2) Generalizing good practices found on this platform into expert-verified guidelines and protocols to improve auditing efficiency, and (3) Source-based auditing systems that track arguments which claims depend on. This position paper encourages constructive debate over the necessity, design and implementation of such a framework, providing early concrete examples to help catalyze these dialogues. Overall, we propose that auditing MI itself is essential for its application in AI safety, industry, and governance.

AI research pipelines can now generate academic work that may satisfy existing peer review standards for quality, novelty, and methodological rigor. However, the publication system was built around the assumption that research is produced by human authors. It therefore lacks a clear way to evaluate work when the knowledge claim may be valid but the producer is partly or fully automated. This paper proposes a two-layer certification framework for AI-generated research. The first layer evaluates whether the knowledge claim is sound. The second layer evaluates the level of human contribution. This separation allows journals and conferences to assess pipeline-generated work more consistently without creating new institutions. The framework uses normative analysis, conceptual design, and dry-run validation against representative submission cases. It classifies human contribution into three categories: Category A, where the work is reachable by an automated pipeline; Category B, where human direction is required at identifiable stages; and Category C, where the work goes beyond current pipeline capability, especially at the problem-formulation stage. The paper also proposes dedicated benchmark slots for fully disclosed automated research. These slots would provide a transparent publication path and help reviewers calibrate judgments over time. The key argument is that publication has historically certified two things at once: that the knowledge is valid and that a human produced it. AI research pipelines separate these two claims. By decoupling knowledge certification from authorship attribution, the proposed framework responds to a structural change already underway. It can be implemented within existing editorial systems, works even when attribution is uncertain, and recognizes human frontier contribution based on epistemic value rather than human origin alone.

Online reviews have played a pivotal role in consumers' decision-making processes. Existing research has highlighted the significant impact of managerial review responses on customer relationship management and firm performance. However, a large portion of online reviews remains unaddressed due to the considerable human labor required to respond to the rapid growth of online reviews. While generative AI has achieved remarkable success in a range of tasks, they are general-purpose models and may not align well with domain-specific human preferences. To tailor these general generative AI models to domain-specific applications, finetuning is commonly employed. Nevertheless, several challenges persist in finetuning with domain-specific data, including hallucinations, difficulty in representing domain-specific human preferences, and over conservatism in offline policy optimization. To address these challenges, we propose a novel preference finetuning method to align an LLM with domain-specific human preferences for generating online review responses. Specifically, we first identify the source of hallucination and propose an effective context augmentation approach to mitigate the LLM hallucination. To represent human preferences, we propose a novel theory-driven preference finetuning approach that automatically constructs human preference pairs in the online review domain. Additionally, we propose a curriculum learning approach to further enhance preference finetuning. To overcome the challenge of over conservatism in existing offline preference finetuning method, we propose a novel density estimation-based support constraint method to relax the conservatism, and we mathematically prove its superior theoretical guarantees. Extensive evaluations substantiate the superiority of our proposed preference finetuning method.

Evaluating AI-generated reviews by verdict agreement is widely recognized as insufficient, yet current alternatives rarely audit which concerns a system identifies, how it prioritizes them, or whether those priorities align with the review rationale that shaped the final assessment. We propose concern alignment, a diagnostic framework that evaluates AI reviews at the concern level rather than only at the verdict level. The framework's core data structure is the match graph, a bipartite alignment between official and AI-generated concerns annotated with match type, severity, and post-rebuttal treatment. From this artifact we derive an evaluation ladder that moves from binary accuracy to concern detection, verdict-stratified behavior, decision-aware calibration, and rebuttal-aware decomposition. In a pilot study of four public AI review systems evaluated in six configurations, concern-level analysis suggests that detection alone does not determine review quality; calibration is often the binding constraint. Systems detect non-trivial fractions of official concerns yet most mark 25--55% of concerns on accepted papers as decisive, where, under our operationalization, no official concern on accepted papers was treated as a decisive blocker. Identical overall verdict accuracy can conceal reject-heavy behavior versus low-recall profiles, and low full-review false decisive rates can partly reflect concern dilution rather than calibrated prioritization. Most systems do not emit a native accept/reject, and inferring it from review tone is method-sensitive, reinforcing the need for concern-level diagnostics that remain stable across inference choices. The contribution is a reusable evaluation framework for auditing which concerns AI reviewers identify, how they weight them, and whether those priorities align with the review rationale that informed the paper's final assessment.

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of academic manuscripts, such as clarity, originality and other evaluation aspects. Although prior studies suggest that LLMs are beginning to influence peer review, it remains unclear whether they are altering its core evaluative functions. Moreover, the extent to which LLMs affect the linguistic form, evaluative focus, and recommendation-related signals of peer-review reports has yet to be systematically examined. In this study, we examine the changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of LLMs, emphasizing variations at fine-grained level. Specifically, we investigate linguistic features such as the length and complexity of words and sentences in review comments, while also automatically annotating the evaluation aspects of individual review sentences. We also use a maximum likelihood estimation method, previously established, to identify review reports that potentially have modified or generated by LLMs. Finally, we assess the impact of evaluation aspects mentioned in LLM-assisted review reports on the informativeness of recommendation for paper decision-making. The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity, as well as more standardized linguistic patterns, particularly reviewers with lower confidence score. At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Analyzing topics extracted from text data in relation to external outcomes is important across fields such as computational social science and organizational research. However, existing topic modeling methods struggle to simultaneously achieve interpretability, topic specificity (alignment with concrete actions or characteristics), and polarity stance consistency (absence of mixed positive and negative evaluations within a topic). Focusing on leadership analysis using corporate review data, this study proposes a method leveraging large language models to generate topics that satisfy these properties, along with an evaluation framework tailored to external outcome analysis. The framework explicitly incorporates topic specificity and polarity stance consistency as evaluation criteria and examines automated evaluation methods based on existing metrics. Using employee reviews from OpenWork, a major corporate review platform in Japan, the proposed method achieves improved interpretability, specificity, and polarity consistency compared to existing approaches. In analyses of external outcomes such as employee morale, it also produces topics with higher explanatory power. These results suggest that the proposed method and evaluation framework provide a generalized approach for topic analysis in applications involving external outcomes.

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

Wales' political landscape has been marked by growing accusations of bias in Welsh media. This paper takes the first computational step toward testing those claims by examining Nation.Cymru, a prominent Welsh political news outlet. I use a two-stage natural language processing (NLP) pipeline: (1) a robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa) bias detector for efficient bias discovery and (2) a large language model (LLM) for target-attributed sentiment classification of bias labels from (1). A primary analysis of 15,583 party mentions across 2022-2026 news articles finds that Reform UK attracts biased framing at twice the rate of Plaid Cymru and over three times as negative in mean sentiment (p<0.001). A secondary analysis across four parties across both news and opinion articles shows that Plaid Cymru is the outlier, receiving markedly more favourable framing than any other party. These findings provide evidence of measurable differential framing in a single Welsh political media outlet, supporting calls for a broader review of Welsh media coverage. Furthermore, the two-stage pipeline offers a low-cost, replicable framework for extending this analysis to other Welsh outlets, as well as media ecosystems outside of Wales.

Dielectric elastomer actuators (DEAs) have garnered extensive attention especially in soft robotic applications over the past few decades owing to the advantages of lightweight, large strain, fast response and high energy density. However, because the DEAs suffer from nonlinear elasticity, inherent viscoelastic creep, hysteresis and vibrational dynamics, the modeling, control and self-sensing of DEAs are challenging, thereby hindering the practical applications of DEAs. In order to address these challenges, numerous studies have been conducted. In this review, various physics-based modeling methods and phenomenological modeling methods for predicting the electromechanical response of DEAs are presented and discussed. Different control methods for DEAs are reviewed, which are classified into open-loop feedforward control, feedback control, feedforward-feedback control and adaptive feedforward control. Physics-based self-sensing methods and data-driven self-sensing methods for reconstructing the DEA displacement without the need for additional sensors are discussed. Finally, the existing problems and new opportunities for the further studies are summarized.

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

Autonomous LLM agents now produce complete research artifacts in machine-learning sandboxes, but real computational physics is harder: experiments are first-principles calculations against re-runnable physical ground truth, and meaningful new work almost always builds on a key existing paper. We ask whether such an agent can perform grounded scrutiny of published computational physics - reading a paper, reproducing it from scratch, and surfacing methodological concerns from execution. We deploy a single Claude Opus 4.6 configuration at two complementary scopes. At scale, across 111 open-access Quantum ESPRESSO papers, an autonomous agent runs the read-plan-compute-compare loop and, although never asked to critique, raises substantive methodological concerns on ~42% of papers; 85 of 88 of these critiques (96.6%) surface only after the agent has actually run a calculation, with a reading-only ceiling of 1.8%. Critique emerges from reproduction, not from reading. In depth, on one Nature Communications paper on multiscale device simulation of a 2D-material MOSFET, a fresh agent inheriting a verified reproduction pipeline autonomously produces a 14-concern physics inventory and a complete, submission-form six-page Comment that revises the paper's L_G = 5 nm headline. Two of its L_G = 5 nm headline-challenging attacks - a source-degeneration contact-resistance bound and a Sb-doping degradation ratio - are absent from the published 21-reviewer peer review.

Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

The post-ChatGPT surge has rapidly reframed IS research and practice. As organizations and society grapple with GenAI adoption, a body of secondary studies and research agendas has emerged to synthesize early evidence and chart directions for future inquiry. This study reviews secondary and roadmap papers to synthesize the state of knowledge on GenAI's benefits and challenges in IS, and to identify future research directions. We performed a systematic search across Scopus, WoS, and eAIS for publications from 2023 onwards. Following a rigorous, multi-stage screening process, we selected a final set of 28 papers for analysis using bibliometric mapping and thematic analysis. We also conducted a quality assessment of all sources to gauge confidence in each source's contribution to the findings. GenAI offers transformative potential to drive productivity, accelerate innovation, personalize services, and democratize access to expertise. However, its adoption is constrained by interrelated challenges: technical unreliability, societal-ethical risks, and a governance vacuum. Interpreted through a socio-technical lens, our findings reveal a persistent misalignment between GenAI's fast-evolving technical subsystem and the slower-adapting social subsystem, positioning IS research as critical for achieving joint optimization. To bridge this gap, we propose a research agenda that reorients IS scholarship from analyzing impacts toward actively shaping the co-evolution of technical capabilities with organizational routines, societal values, and regulatory institutions: emphasizing hybrid human-AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance. For practitioners and policymakers, responsible adoption requires balancing automation with human augmentation alongside transparent governance and adaptive regulations to ensure broadly shared benefits.

Automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) has entered the coexistence phase with traditional peer review, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly incorporated into real-world manuscript evaluation. In parallel, research on automated and AI-assisted peer review has proliferated. Despite this momentum, empirical progress remains constrained by several critical limitations in existing datasets. While reviewers routinely evaluate figures, tables, and complex layouts to assess scientific claims, most existing datasets remain overwhelmingly text-centric. This bias is reinforced by a narrow focus on data from computer science publications. Furthermore, existing datasets rarely preserve precise alignment between review comments and specific manuscript versions, obscuring the iterative relationship between peer review and manuscript evolution. In response, we introduce FMMD, a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research. The dataset addresses the current limitations by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. By explicitly aligning review comments with the exact article version under review, FMMD enables granular analysis of the peer review lifecycle. Importantly, its coverage of F1000Research extends ASPR research beyond its traditional focus on computer science to a diverse range of scientific disciplines. FMMD supports a range of research tasks, including visual-semantic consistency classification, figure-related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction based on multimodal manuscript inputs, thereby providing a comprehensive empirical resource for developing and evaluating multimodal ASPR systems and advancing peer review research.

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a direct-to-text generation problem, suffering from hallucination, overlooked critiques, and a lack of verifiable grounding. To address these limitations, we introduce $\textbf{RebuttalAgent}$, the first multi-agents framework that reframes rebuttal generation as an evidence-centric planning task. Our system decomposes complex feedback into atomic concerns and dynamically constructs hybrid contexts by synthesizing compressed summaries with high-fidelity text while integrating an autonomous and on-demand external search module to resolve concerns requiring outside literature. By generating an inspectable response plan before drafting, $\textbf{RebuttalAgent}$ ensures that every argument is explicitly anchored in internal or external evidence. We validate our approach on the proposed $\textbf{RebuttalBench}$ and demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms strong baselines in coverage, faithfulness, and strategic coherence, offering a transparent and controllable assistant for the peer review process.

ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this decision was not accompanied by quantitative evidence. In this work, we investigate this claim by measuring the proportion of LLM-generated content in review vs. non-review research papers in recent years. Using two high-quality detection methods, we find a substantial increase in LLM-generated content across both review and non-review papers, with a higher prevalence in review papers. However, when considering the number of LLM-generated papers published in each category, the estimates of non-review LLM-generated papers are almost six times higher. Furthermore, we find that this policy will affect papers in certain domains far more than others, with the CS subdiscipline Computers & Society potentially facing cuts of 50%. Our analysis provides an evidence-based framework for evaluating such policy decisions, and we release our code to facilitate future investigations at: https://github.com/yanaiela/llm-review-arxiv.

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) speakers are compact, scalable alternatives to traditional voice coil speakers, promising improved sound quality through precise semiconductor manufacturing. This review provides an overview of the research landscape, covering baseband-displacement, ultrasound-based, and thermoacoustic sound generation concepts, classifying MEMS speakers by their actuation principles as electrodynamic, piezoelectric, or electrostatic devices. A comparative analysis of performance indicators from 1990 to 2026 highlights the dominance of piezoelectric MEMS with baseband displacement, focusing on miniaturization and efficiency. The review outlines upcoming research challenges and identifies potential candidates for achieving full-spectrum audio performance. A focus on innovative approaches could lead to widespread adoption of MEMS-only speakers.

With the rapid advancement of AI models, their deployment across diverse tasks has become increasingly widespread. A notable emerging application is leveraging AI models to assist in reviewing scientific papers. However, recent reports have revealed that some papers contain hidden, injected prompts designed to manipulate AI reviewers into providing overly favorable evaluations. In this work, we present an early systematic investigation into this emerging threat. We propose two classes of attacks: (1) static attack, which employs a fixed injection prompt, and (2) iterative attack, which optimizes the injection prompt against a simulated reviewer model to maximize its effectiveness. Both attacks achieve striking performance, frequently inducing full evaluation scores when targeting frontier AI reviewers. Furthermore, we show that these attacks are robust across various settings. To counter this threat, we explore a simple detection-based defense. While it substantially reduces the attack success rate, we demonstrate that an adaptive attacker can partially circumvent this defense. Our findings underscore the need for greater attention and rigorous safeguards against prompt-injection threats in AI-assisted peer review.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in reasoning across diverse domains. However, effective reasoning in real-world tasks requires adapting the reasoning strategy to the demands of the problem, ranging from fast, intuitive responses to deliberate, step-by-step reasoning and tool-augmented thinking. Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, we propose a novel taxonomy of LLM reasoning strategies along two knowledge boundaries: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive from deliberative processes, and an internal/external boundary distinguishing reasoning grounded in the model's parameters from reasoning augmented by external tools. We systematically survey recent work on adaptive reasoning in LLMs and categorize methods based on key decision factors. We conclude by highlighting open challenges and future directions toward more adaptive, efficient, and reliable LLMs.

Online reviews help people make better decisions. Review platforms usually depend on typed input, where leaving a good review requires significant effort because users must carefully organize and articulate their thoughts. This may discourage users from leaving comprehensive and high-quality reviews, especially when they are on the go. To address this challenge, we developed Vocalizer, a mobile application that enables users to provide reviews through voice input, with enhancements from a large language model (LLM). In a longitudinal study, we analysed user interactions with the app, focusing on AI-driven features that help refine and improve reviews. Our findings show that users frequently utilized the AI agent to add more detailed information to their reviews. We also show how interactive AI features can improve users self-efficacy and willingness to share reviews online. Finally, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of integrating AI assistance into review-writing systems.

We present a comprehensive survey of the advancements and techniques in the field of tractable probabilistic generative modeling, primarily focusing on Probabilistic Circuits (PCs). We provide a unified perspective on the inherent trade-offs between expressivity and tractability, highlighting the design principles and algorithmic extensions that have enabled building expressive and efficient PCs, and provide a taxonomy of the field. We also discuss recent efforts to build deep and hybrid PCs by fusing notions from deep neural models, and outline the challenges and open questions that can guide future research in this evolving field.

Purpose: Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) has gained traction in an attempt to improve the interpretability and robustness of machine learning predictions. Specifically (medical) biosignals such as electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), and electromyography (EMG) could benefit from good UQ, since these suffer from a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and good human interpretability is pivotal for medical applications. To determine how uncertainty estimation can be used for biosignal tasks, we investigate current methods, use cases, applications, evaluations, and uncertainty measures. Methods: In this paper, we systematically review the state of the art of applying Uncertainty Quantification to Machine Learning tasks in the biosignal domain. All works from Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE XPlore and PsycINFO that discuss uncertainty in Machine Learning on one of the aforementioned biosignals is included. Results: We present various methods, shortcomings, uncertainty measures and theoretical frameworks that currently exist in this application domain based on the 53 reviewed papers and related literature. We address misconceptions in the field, provide recommendations for future work, and discuss gaps in the literature in relation to diagnostic implementations as well as control for prostheses or brain-computer interfaces. Conclusion: Overall it can be concluded that promising UQ methods are available, but that research is needed on how people and systems may interact with an uncertainty-model in a (clinical) environment.