Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Beyond Imitation: A Framework and Benchmark for LLM-Assisted Peer Review

The rapid growth of scientific publishing has strained peer review, particularly in machine learning, raising concerns about declining review quality and increasing reviewer workload. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as automated review assistants, yet their evaluation has focused largely on imitating human-written reviews rather than supporting the core functions of peer review. Here, we introduce a verification-centric perspective on LLM-assisted peer review, emphasizing error detection as a critical and resource-intensive task. We present a scalable benchmark that evaluates review systems' ability to identify logical contradictions, constructed through synthetic insertio...

AuthorsRachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan et al.
Primary categorycs.AI
Published8 October 2026
Last updated at source8 October 2026
cs.AI
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/fe2ffb34-fa1f-4e88-97c5-280561595fed" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Popularity, last 2 days

0 now. Counts as reported by the source, snapshotted daily by Silytics.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.