arXiv preprint ·
Can We Believe AI Peer Review?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
As large language models become widely used in scientific review and manuscript revision, AI scores are increasingly serving as feedback for assessing paper quality and guiding edits. Yet whether a single AI score reliably reflects the reviewer's judgment, and whether revision gains based on that score are endorsed by other reviewers, remain understudied. Using 200 papers from ICLR 2025 and 2026 and approximately 14,000 AI reviews, we study score reliability, score-distribution estimation, and cross-model agreement on revision gains. Repeated reviews fluctuate even under identical conditions. Finer-grained scoring protocols reduce score variance but also systematically shift mean scores, while the gains assigned to manuscript revisions depend strongly on the reviewer.
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.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Generalization Analysis of Biased Stochastic Gradient Methods for Minimax Problems
SCARCE: Emergent Institutions in Long-Horizon Multi-Agent Coding Systems
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
Recursive Reward Improvement via Adversarial Meta-Prompt Evolution
ReviewPilot: A Multi-Agent System for Screening and Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews
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.