arXiv preprint ·

More Than Mimicking Reviewers: Evaluating LLMs for Pre-Submission Peer Review

Pouya Parsa and Amin Rezaei

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Peer-review feedback often arrives too late for authors to make meaningful revisions. We study an author-facing LLM system that moves part of this stress test before submission: it generates a broad pool of atomic concerns and compresses them into a short report. We evaluate agreement with historical reviews and, separately, the possible validity of concerns they omit. From 10,000 ICLR 2026 submissions, we use 3,398 manuscripts with accessible versions that predate review. On a ten-paper diagnostic, independent sampling covers 44.9% of historical issues; deduplication and refill reaches 78.7% strict and 84.9% seriousness-weighted coverage, at 3.6$\times$ more requests and 5.2$\times$ more tokens. A hidden Top-32 Oracle preserves the full 79.3% weighted coverage of a 256-candidate pool, but paper-only selectors retain only 40--44%. LLM review therefore provides broad coverage with a large candidate pool but compresses poorly; ablations identify representative selection and matcher sensitivity as the main sources of this gap.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Artificial Intelligence

Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics