arXiv preprint ·
Can AI Reviewers See Your Efforts to Improve Your Paper? A Large-Scale Study of Paper Revision Trajectories
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
AI reviewers are increasingly used to assess scientific manuscripts, yet it remains unclear whether their judgments reflect the improvements authors make through revision. We investigate this question using PaperTrajectory-2026, the 2026 release of PaperTrajectory, a dataset of 6,959 paper trajectories across five AI conferences, with automatic annotations of changes along 14 dimensions and separate judgments of overall quality. The annotations show that major improvements emphasize empirical evidence and framing, while later revisions tend toward incremental improvement. Using independent assessments of manuscript versions from eight AI reviewers, we examine whether annotated major improvements receive higher scores, which revision dimensions are associated with score changes, and whether user opinions can outweigh observed revision gains. Every reviewer leaves scores unchanged on most major improvements, and agreement on the direction of score changes is weak. Revision dimensions show some reviewer-specific associations with score increases, but provide limited predictive discrimination and no consistent guide across reviewers. Even when a revision earns a higher neutral score, a brief negative user opinion can erase or reverse that advantage, with substantial variation across reviewers. These findings show that substantive revisions are not consistently reflected in review scores and that observed scoring gains can be vulnerable to user framing, motivating assessments that connect manuscript evidence to overall judgments and remain stable when no scientific evidence changes.
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 Computation & Language / NLP
XDecideBench: Evaluating Typed Decision Models and Confidence Policies Across Languages
GRIPS: An Empirical Study of Pre-SQL Grounding Information for SQL Generation
Information-Theoretic Design of Sparse Autoencoder-Based Steering
A Capitulation Direction Emerges With Scale and Is Causally Load-Bearing Where Validation Is Strong: Eight Models, Two Families, and Five Measurement Hazards
Learning by Doing: Autonomously Compiling and Curating Agent Skills from Verified Traces
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP 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.