Review

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Digital platforms commonly optimize for satisfaction using signals such as ratings, likes, and sentiment, implicitly treating satisfaction as a proxy for user well-being. Psychological theory, however, characterizes well-being as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond satisfaction or short-term positivity. In this paper, we examine whether commonly used satisfaction signals capture expressions of well-being, and what types of content are associated with different well-being outcomes. Our study focuses on book consumption, a convenient domain wherein users engage substantially with fixed pieces of content and sometimes provide nuanced long-form feedback. Our results show that (a) rating scales and sentiment only loosely correlate with most facets of psychological well-being and (b) ratings and sentiment are more closely aligned with immediate and hedonic as opposed to enduring and eudaimonic expressions of well-being. Further, by linking reviews to book content, we find that themes related to values, and institutions like religion (Pearson r = 0.35) or human drives (r=.26) are associated with higher meaning and accomplishment respectively, while incivility (avg r = -.15) and past-focused language (avg r = -.12) are associated with lower well-being. These findings motivate richer outcome targets for content recommendation systems beyond satisfaction alone.

This study investigates sentiment polarity biases, specifically, differences in how accurately AI models classify positive versus negative reviews across languages and model architectures. Large language models show a negative bias in French and are more accurate on negative reviews, while encoder models exhibit positive bias in Japanese, missing negative reviews that use indirect criticism. These language-specific polarity biases have implications in both social and business domains deploying multilingual sentiment analysis systems.

Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

As academic submissions grow, the traditional peer review process struggles to keep up, raising concerns about quality and fairness. A trend of using large language models (LLMs) for assistance has emerged. In this work, we take a critical step toward improving the quality of LLM-generated reviews. We propose the PeerCheck framework, which investigates LLM-human review differences (RQ1) and explores methods to improve LLM-generated review quality (RQ2). We first analyzed the human-written reviews with reviews generated by various LLMs and found that LLMs and humans focus on different terms, e.g., LLMs prioritize theory while humans emphasize methodology and experiments. We further adopt prompt engineering, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and utilize retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to enhance the LLM-generated reviews towards human-level quality. We find CoT significantly improves the quality of LLM reviews, while we discover an unexpected "RAG paradox," i.e., experiments with RAG produce different results for various LLMs and, in some cases, even reduce review quality. Our comprehensive analysis of LLM-generated academic reviews illustrates both possibilities and limitations, contributing to a more effective, human-aligned review system. Our dataset is available on https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/PeerCheck.

Incorporating textual reviews into a Recommender System has become a prominent strategy for enriching collaborative signals with semantic information. However, the actual contribution of review-derived representations remains an open question, particularly when strong collaborative baselines are employed. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of textual information on Matrix Factorization by introducing and comparing three enrichment strategies over a common collaborative backbone. First, we propose a learnable gating mechanism that adaptively balances collaborative and textual signals during training. This mechanism is applied to two distinct review representations: (i) aggregated topic profiles extracted from user and item histories, and (ii) full text embedding representations derived from reviews. Additionally, we explore a cross-attention mechanism that identifies and emphasizes the most informative dimensions of the textual representation before fusion with collaborative factors. We evaluate six variants: pure, enriched with topic profiles and text via gating; enriched with topics and text via gating; and enhanced with cross-attention over textual features. Experiments across multiple review-based datasets reveal that although adaptive fusion mechanisms improve representation flexibility, the marginal contribution of textual signals remains limited compared to the collaborative backbone. These findings suggest that, under typical rating-prediction settings, collaborative information continues to dominate performance, raising important considerations for the effective integration of semantic review signals into recommendation models.

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns. We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score, against the public decision outcomes of a major machine learning venue. AIPR grades by prompting alone, with no fine-tuning on reviews or decisions. Across 300 ICLR submissions with public decision tiers and reviewer ratings, graded under a frozen pipeline with hypotheses pre-registered before any score met any outcome, the overall score separates rejected from accepted submissions (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87), rises monotonically across tiers, and tracks the mean reviewer rating. The signal is strongest where we claim it: the lowest-scoring fifth is rejected far above the base rate, with oral papers absent. The validity comes mostly from the model: a one-paragraph prompt on the same model discriminates almost as well as the full pipeline (the small gap favours the pipeline but does not meet the pre-declared criterion, p = 0.09). What the engineering adds is reliability and a grounded review: AIPR's score barely moves across repeated runs (0.7 vs. 2.8 points within-paper SD) where the bare prompt swings, and the same pass returns a rubric-structured, evidence-grounded review rather than a bare number, with the human keeping the decision.

Long-term mortality rates after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain elevated due to post-EVAR rupture caused by loss of seal in stent graft sealing zones. Structured CT review using centerline measurements improves detection, but current workflows require manual centerline editing and expert operators. We propose a transformer framework for automated, protocol-driven sealing zone assessment that combines 3D centerline tracking with embedding-based geometric prediction. Two state-of-the-art image-to-graph models are evaluated for aorto-iliac centerline extraction from follow-up CT and for measurement of stent position, vessel diameters, and seal lengths according to EVAR4C protocol. Across the full test set and a challenging no-contrast subset, the proposed fully automatic method outperforms the commercial semi-automatic workflow.

AI coding agents increasingly accept assigned software tasks, modify repositories under bounded authority, and return work packages for review. Prior work proposed the software delegation contract, covering the task, authority, returned work package, and acceptance context, as the unit of analysis for delegated coding work, but did not measure its effects. This paper reports a controlled pilot study of explicit delegation contracts for coding agents. We built a dependency-free TypeScript API task environment with seeded defects and documentation gaps, authored ten tasks across five families, and ran 64 agent executions across two model tiers under three conditions: a realistic issue-style prompt, an explicit delegation contract, and a contract with a required evidence bundle. Each run was scored with hidden acceptance tests, mutation checks, and scope analysis, then reviewed by three independent condition-blinded model-based reviewers using a fixed rubric, for 192 reviews. Explicit contracts did not improve objective task outcomes: all 64 runs passed hidden acceptance checks, with zero scope violations. They did improve reviewability. Evidence sufficiency improved in 22 of 30 paired comparisons and worsened in none (+0.83 on a 5-point scale, p < 0.0001, Cliff's delta = 0.66); reviewer ambiguity decreased (p = 0.035); changed-file lists, known-limitations sections, residual-risk sections, and reviewer checklists appeared mostly or only when demanded by the contract. Contracts cost +13% agent tokens and +38% wall-clock time, with larger effects for the weaker model tier. On these small tasks, delegation contracts bought reviewability rather than correctness.

Existing multi-agent software development systems have proposed many forms of agent collaboration, including role-based collaboration and automated code review. However, many systems assume a common runtime, a central conversation server, or the same API family. Under these assumptions, LLM agents from different vendors cannot easily exchange messages directly from their own execution environments while dividing development and review work on a shared codebase. This paper presents tap, a file-based collaboration protocol that allows Claude (Anthropic) and Codex (OpenAI) to collaborate on one codebase without shared memory or an identical runtime. The core of tap is a file-first design that preserves markdown files with metadata as original messages, combines a file inspection path (file communication, Tier 1) with real-time notification paths for Claude and Codex (real-time communication, Tier 2), and isolates work through separate git worktrees. Even if real-time notification fails or a receiver restarts, the message file remains available and the same content can be inspected again. In a 27-day, 37-generation self-applied operation where tap was used to develop and review itself, we collected 209 tap-related pull requests and 717 operational artifacts. An analysis of 375 review artifacts showed that the share of reviews recording at least one defect or requested change was 69.8% for heterogeneous model pairs and 53.1% for homogeneous model pairs. These results show that tap, which combines file-based message preservation with real-time notification, operates in a real production repository, and that combining heterogeneous models and execution environments can broaden review perspectives. tap is distributed as the open-source npm package @hua-labs/tap (v0.5.2).

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

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for data hunger in centralized learning. This paradigm enables privacy with multiple clients to train a shared-task model collaboratively without exposing their local data. While being a key component in any learning system, data is also a primary source of vulnerabilities and challenges, and a major determinant of a stable and well-converged training. Existing FL reviews describe general foundations, security practices, opportunities, challenges, and applications, without delving into diverse aspects of data and considering problems from the data perspective. They rarely provide a data-lens synthesis that links concrete data properties, split protocols, and defenses to convergence speed and stability. This survey fills that gap with three advances. First, we analyze non-IID into measurable traits and rank their influence on convergence as strong, medium, or light, explaining the mechanisms behind each and reconciling evidence across images, texts, and graphs. Second, we connect experimental splitting practices to the real phenomena they emulate, expose the artifacts they introduce, and show how those artifacts affect target accuracy. Third, we analyze how data-related vulnerabilities and their proposed defenses affect convergence, reporting performance under clean and adversarial conditions to make the convergence-robustness trade-off explicit. To our knowledge, this is the first survey to provide a complete understanding of data-related challenges that govern FL. With clear takeaways distilled for each concern, our work serves as actionable guidance, helping practitioners design their system with predictable convergence and stability.

Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year. Unfortunately, such manual reviews are time-consuming and prone to error. In an audit of 188 debt collection cases granted default judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles, we find that 4% contained major defects that should have entirely prevented default judgment, 10% contained inconsistencies requiring reduced judgments, and 32% contained errors requiring amendment prior to judgment. To support courthouses in default judgment review, we collaborated with courthouse attorneys and judges in designing a Default Assistant. The Default Assistant employs large language models to evaluate a case with respect to predetermined legal requirements and provide cited recommendations for an expert user's review. We equip users to verify these recommendations by grounding the assistant's explanations in cited quotes and tables from the original case filings. We conduct a controlled study with 66 law students that conservatively simulates court review, with more time and resources than court staff. We nevertheless find users aided by the Default Assistant were 6.0% more accurate on the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 1.0e-4). Simultaneously, users were 25.9% faster in reviewing the average requirement than unaided reviewers (p < 2.5e-10). Statutory requirements demanding extensive document search realized the largest gains, with error reductions and time savings from AI assistance up to 62% and 34%, respectively, relative to unassisted user performance and with differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Our work provides a proof-of-concept that AI assistants with citations have the potential to help resource-constrained courts conduct default judgment review more accurately and efficiently.

Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often produce generic comments with insufficient evidence support and weak source traceability, while complex multi-agent systems incur high inference costs. To address these challenges, we propose EGTR-Review, an Evidence-Grounded and Traceable Review Generation framework via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation. EGTR-Review first constructs a multi-agent teacher that performs structure-aware paper decomposition, key-element extraction, external scholarly evidence retrieval, evidence-state labeling, verification reasoning, and review synthesis. It then distills both intermediate reasoning trajectories and final review comments into a lightweight student model through task-prefix-driven multi-task learning. An evidence-weighted objective further reduces the influence of weak, missing, or non-verifiable supervision. Experiments on public peer-review datasets show that EGTR-Review (Student) outperforms strong prompt-based, fine-tuned, and structured/agentic baselines across automatic metrics, LLM-as-Judge evaluation, and human evaluation, while maintaining strong factual grounding and source traceability with substantially lower token consumption and inference time. Our code, prompts, configurations, and sample data are available on GitHub.

High-stakes production document-generation systems require language models to be adaptive, evidence-grounded, and auditable. We present HOPM, a hierarchical online prompt mutation framework evaluated on a real marketplace dispute-evidence workflow. HOPM treats prompts as online policies: a family/version router selects a prompt, deterministic guardrails attribute failures to mutable prompt-token categories, and dual feedback from human review and an automated judge updates both routing and mutation priorities. The primary evidence is an observed matched production-evaluation ablation: seven variants are evaluated on the same 600 cases each, enabling component comparisons against static prompting, manual iteration, bandit-only routing, mutation-only adaptation, human-only feedback, auto-judge-only feedback, and full dual-loop HOPM. Full HOPM improves count win rate over a static control from 34.7% to 45.7% (+11.0 pp; paired McNemar p = 1.31e-11) and amount-weighted win rate from 22.3% to 41.4% (+19.1 pp; 95% paired bootstrap CI [10.3, 28.9] pp). It also increases mean Likert quality from 3.18 to 4.40 and reduces issue-flag rate from 15.3% to 5.2%. Supporting review artifacts cover 770 generated-text reviews, 318 labeled reviewer exports, a 10-case/61-rating calibration slice, and a 70-case/350-rating OCR benchmark; these artifacts calibrate rubric, guardrail, title-risk, and OCR-risk interpretation rather than substituting for the production ablation. The paper includes control setup, sample sizes, confidence intervals, paired tests, prompt-token categories, pseudocode, schema, rubric, guardrail taxonomy, and a constructed example so the evaluation structure can be reproduced without exposing proprietary evidence.

Industrial visual sim-to-real is often described as transferring from synthetic images to real images, but industrial deployment usually involves a broader mismatch between available evidence and required decisions. A system may be built from CAD renderings, simulated RGB-D observations, normal reference images, synthetic defects, pretrained feature spaces, or language prompts, yet deployed under different sensors, lighting, materials, fixtures, calibration, production variation, and rare defect modes. This review reframes industrial visual sim-to-real as a domain-gap problem organized by prior availability. We distinguish CAD-available settings, where explicit object geometry can support rendering, calibration, pose estimation, segmentation, and test-time geometric verification; CAD-unavailable settings, where geometry is replaced by normal-reference appearance, feature distributions, teacher-student residuals, synthetic anomaly assumptions, foundation features, or vision-language priors; and boundary-prior settings, where approximate models, templates, reference views, or semantic correspondences preserve only part of the CAD role. This framing connects CAD-based detection and 6D pose-estimation literature with industrial anomaly and surface-inspection literature that is usually reviewed separately. To make the taxonomy concrete, we use empirical anchors on T-LESS/BOP, MVTec AD, and VisA. The anchors show that CAD render count alone does not close transfer; source-distribution design, detector capacity, and small real calibration can matter more. They also show that CAD at test time creates a distinct verification channel through mask, pose, and depth consistency, whereas CAD-unavailable inspection relies on calibrated normality and feature deviation. The review therefore argues against a single cross-task leaderboard and instead asks what prior grounds the deployment decision.

The growing number of submitted papers has motivated the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support and augment the peer review process, particularly in terms of improving its speed and scalability. Yet, it remains unknown whether LLMs engage with scientific manuscripts in the same manner as human reviewers, or whether they merely produce review-looking text. To address this, we introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a novel framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement. To complement the PRAIB framework, we conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers. Spanning the 2021--2025 period, these machine-generated reviews are compared against original human feedback across diverse prompting strategies to identify systematic behavioral divergences. Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers: LLM ratings are less variable, positively biased, and overconfident, and their cross-reference patterns are model-dependent and distinct from human norms. Furthermore, when evaluated through PRAIB, we observe that LLMs tend to generate longer, more complex reviews, yet frequently overlook the atomic weaknesses noted by human reviewers. By characterizing where and how LLMs reviewing behavior departs from human norms, PRAIB provides the community with a diagnostic tool for identifying which aspects of the review process LLMs can reliably support today and which require further development before deployment.

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

LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or scores quality with features designed for human-written reviews; no prior system detects deficiencies in LLM-generated reviews at the level of individual defect types. To bridge the gap, we introduce TADDLE, a Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews, together with the first expert-annotated benchmark for this task. Our benchmark comprises 1,800 reviews on 50 ICLR 2025 papers, multi-label-annotated by 18 domain experts against a taxonomy of six defect categories (plus a non-deficient label). TADDLE decomposes detection into four specialized analysis tools -- Verify, Correct, Complete, and Transform -- orchestrated by an agent; an integrator synthesizes their outputs into binary and multi-label classifications via two-stage semi-supervised learning. Extensive experiments show that TADDLE performs strongly on both binary detection and the multi-label classification task. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/AquariusAQ/TADDLE.

Online travel platforms generate vast volumes of user-generated hotel reviews, offering rich opportunities to understand traveler experiences at scale. However, transforming unstructured textual feedback into structured, actionable insights remains a challenging task. This paper presents SentimentLens, a scalable analysis system based on Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis that performs knowledge extraction from unstructured hotel reviews and organizes them into interpretable service categories. SentimentLens integrates aspect term extraction, aspect sentiment classification, semantic category assignment, and multi-level analytical modules to support region-level, hotel-level, and category-level evaluation. The system is designed to operate across different geographic contexts and hospitality settings. To demonstrate its practical utility, we apply SentimentLens to a large real-world dataset of over 10,000 publicly available hotel reviews. Through extensive analysis, the framework reveals how traveler sentiment varies across regions, service categories, and hotel archetypes. We further implement a cross-modal reconciliation of textual sentiment and numerical ratings to identify latent operational conflicts, structural inconsistencies in service quality, and high-impact improvement opportunities using importance--performance and entropy-based analyses. The results show that SentimentLens effectively transforms large-scale unstructured reviews into actionable intelligence, supporting data-driven decision-making for hospitality management and tourism policy. While demonstrated using a national case study, the proposed system is generalizable to other destinations and review-driven service domains.

LLM-based ranking systems are vulnerable to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) attacks, where adversaries inject semantic signals into product descriptions to artificially boost rankings. We propose SCI-Defense, a three-component defense framework combining Perplexity detection (PPL), Semantic Integrity Scoring (SIS), and Inter-Candidate Detection (ICD). SIS evaluates four manipulation dimensions: Authority Attribution (AA), Narrative Purposiveness (NP), Comparative Claims (CA), and Temporal Claims (TC). Evaluated on 600 Amazon product descriptions across 6 categories, SCI-Defense achieves Precision=1.000 and FPR=0.000, with Recall of 1.000, 0.952, and 0.830 against String, Reasoning, and Review attacks respectively. On 600 MS MARCO web passages, String attacks are blocked with perfect recall while Review attacks yield near-zero recall, as web passages lack the persuasion-oriented signals that SIS targets in product descriptions. We demonstrate that existing defenses -- PPL-only filters, SafetyClf content classifiers, and paraphrasing -- achieve zero recall against semantic manipulation attacks. We further demonstrate new attacks such as Specification Amplification and Use-Case Saturation can expose semantic relevance manipulation as a structural defense blind spot that suggests directions for future research.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.