Review

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical trials bridge basic research and clinical application, serving as essential steps in drug development. This review examines clinical trial phases (Phase I [safety assessment], Phase II [efficacy evaluation], Phase III [large-scale validation], and Phase IV [post-marketing surveillance]), highlighting the distinct characteristics and interconnections. Major challenges are identified, including ethical compliance, participant recruitment, and ensuring diversity and representativeness in trial populations, while proposing evidence-based mitigation strategies. To address these challenges, innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and digital health tools, are transforming trial design and implementation, enhancing efficiency and data quality. Looking forward, the review explores how emerging therapies, including gene therapy and immunotherapy, are reshaping trial design requirements and emphasizes the growing importance of regulatory harmonization and global collaboration. Clinical trials remain central to advancing innovative drug development and improving patient outcomes.