Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao, Zhongfen Deng, Shuaiqi Liu, Renze Lou, Henry Zou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Nan Zhang, Mukund Srinath, Haoran Zhang, Vipul Gupta, Yinghui Li, Tao Li, Fei Wang, Qin Liu, Tianlin Liu, Pengzhi Gao, Congying Xia, Chen Xing, Cheng Jiayang, Zhaowei Wang, Ying Su, Raj Shah, Ruohao Guo, Jing Gu, Haoran Li, Kangda Wei, Zihao Wang, Lu Cheng, Surangika Ranathunga, Meng Fang, Jie Fu, Fei Liu, Ruihong Huang, Eduardo Blanco, Yixin Cao, Rui Zhang, Philip Yu, Wenpeng Yin
| Challenge: | a comparative analysis of paper (meta-)reviews by large language models (LLMs) aims to identify and distinguish LLMs from human activities . |
| Approach: | They present a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed analysis aims to improve recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities. |
Similar Papers
Position Paper: How Should We Responsibly Adopt LLMs in the Peer Review Process? (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent paper criticizes the current use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for simple review text generation. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models to support key aspects of the review process . they argue that this approach overlooks more meaningful applications of LLMs . authors argue that the increased reviewing burden per reviewer is a factor . |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach would support reproducibility, correctness and relevance of citations and ethics review flagging. |
LLMs as Meta-Reviewers’ Assistants: A Case Study (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Eftekhar Hossain, Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Naman Bansal, R. Alexander Knipper, Souvika Sarkar, John Salvador, Yash Mahajan, Sri Ram Pavan Kumar Guttikonda, Mousumi Akter, Md. Mahadi Hassan, Matthew Freestone, Matthew C. Williams Jr., Dongji Feng, Santu Karmaker
| Challenge: | Meta-reviews are a critical step in the overall scientific peer-reviewed process, which focuses on understanding the consensus of expert opinions on a scholarly work and making informed judgments on its scientific merit. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to generate a controlled multi-perspective-summary (MPS) of their opinions to help meta-reviewers better comprehend multiple experts' perspectives. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can help meta-reviewers better comprehend multiple experts’ perspectives by generating a controlled multi-perspective-summary (MPS) of their opinions. |
LLM as a Meta-Judge: Synthetic Data for NLP Evaluation Metric Validation (2026.acl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation are expensive and time-consuming. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that utilizes LLMs to generate synthetic evaluation datasets . they propose meta-correlation to measure alignment between metric rankings and human benchmarks based on synthetic data . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves meta-correlations exceeding 0.9 in multilingual QA and replaces human judgment with synthetic evaluation datasets. |
DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) face limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-stage framework to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens and achieves 88.21% and 80.20% win rates. |
LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Fernández, Albert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hanna, Alexander Koller, Andre Martins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, Alberto Testoni
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of NLP models with LLMs are based on human judgments . however, there are concerns about their validity and reproducibility in proprietary models . |
| Approach: | They evaluate 11 current LLMs for their ability to replicate annotations. they show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can replicate human annotations on 20 NLP datasets and show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, Kai Shu, Lu Cheng, Huan Liu
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm . traditional methods of assessment and evaluation fail in dynamic and open-ended scenarios . |
| Approach: | They propose a paradigm where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection for machine learning evaluation scenarios. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model-based judgment and evaluation paradigms are based on large language models and are compared to the current model-driven evaluation paradigm. |
Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviews (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Hyungyu Shin, Jingyu Tang, Yoonjoo Lee, Nayoung Kim, Hyunseung Lim, Ji Yong Cho, Hwajung Hong, Moontae Lee, Juho Kim
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews, but determining whether they are trustworthy requires systematic evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose an automatic focus-level evaluation pipeline based on two sets of facets . authors evaluated LLM reviews at surface-level or content-level . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework enables automatic evaluation of paper reviews based on two sets of facets . the framework compared open review paper reviews with human experts on validity, clarity, novelty . |
Large Language Models for Automated Literature Review: An Evaluation of Reference Generation, Abstract Writing, and Review Composition (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are a promising solution to automate literature review writing tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to automatically evaluate the performance of large language models in three key tasks of literature review writing: reference generation, abstract writing, and literature review composition. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses the hallucination rates in generated references and measures the semantic coverage and factual consistency of the literature summaries and compositions against human-written counterparts. |
Is LLM a Reliable Reviewer? A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM on Automatic Paper Reviewing Tasks (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing datasets and methods targeting review-related tasks have not thoroughly inspected model's review ability. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on two types of tasks under different settings: the score prediction task and the review generation task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can give passable decisions (> 60% accuracy) on single options, but it always makes mistakes. |
Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Tianhao Wu, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Jing Xu, Yuandong Tian, Jiantao Jiao, Jason E Weston, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar
| Challenge: | Existing methods for improving large language models have focused on improving model responses rather than judgment capabilities, resulting in rapid saturation during iterative training. |
| Approach: | They propose an iterative Meta-Rewarding step where the model judges its own judgements and uses that feedback to refine its judgment skills. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves Llama-3-8B-Instruct from 22.9% to 39.4% on AlpacaEval 2 and 20.6% to 29.1% on Arena-Hard. |