Daily Papers

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

Peer review is fundamental to the integrity and advancement of scientific publication. Traditional methods of peer review analyses often rely on exploration and statistics of existing peer review data, which do not adequately address the multivariate nature of the process, account for the latent variables, and are further constrained by privacy concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data. We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework, which effectively disentangles the impacts of multiple latent factors and addresses the privacy issue. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers' biases, supported by sociological theories such as the social influence theory, altruism fatigue, and authority bias. We believe that this study could offer valuable insights to improve the design of peer review mechanisms.

Providing constructive feedback to paper authors is a core component of peer review. With reviewers increasingly having less time to perform reviews, automated support systems are required to ensure high reviewing quality, thus making the feedback in reviews useful for authors. To this end, we identify four key aspects of review comments (individual points in weakness sections of reviews) that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness. To enable evaluation and development of models assessing review comments, we introduce the RevUtil dataset. We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes. The synthetic data additionally contains rationales, i.e., explanations for the aspect score of a review comment. Employing the RevUtil dataset, we benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales. Our experiments demonstrate that these fine-tuned models achieve agreement levels with humans comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those of powerful closed models like GPT-4o. Our analysis further reveals that machine-generated reviews generally underperform human reviews on our four aspects.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.

Acquiring reviewers for academic submissions is a challenging recommendation scenario. Recent graph learning-driven models have made remarkable progress in the field of recommendation, but their performance in the academic reviewer recommendation task may suffer from a significant false negative issue. This arises from the assumption that unobserved edges represent negative samples. In fact, the mechanism of anonymous review results in inadequate exposure of interactions between reviewers and submissions, leading to a higher number of unobserved interactions compared to those caused by reviewers declining to participate. Therefore, investigating how to better comprehend the negative labeling of unobserved interactions in academic reviewer recommendations is a significant challenge. This study aims to tackle the ambiguous nature of unobserved interactions in academic reviewer recommendations. Specifically, we propose an unsupervised Pseudo Neg-Label strategy to enhance graph contrastive learning (GCL) for recommending reviewers for academic submissions, which we call RevGNN. RevGNN utilizes a two-stage encoder structure that encodes both scientific knowledge and behavior using Pseudo Neg-Label to approximate review preference. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that RevGNN outperforms all baselines across four metrics. Additionally, detailed further analyses confirm the effectiveness of each component in RevGNN.

User-generated reviews significantly influence consumer decisions, particularly in the travel domain when selecting accommodations. This paper contribution comprising two main elements. Firstly, we present a novel dataset of authentic guest reviews sourced from a prominent online travel platform, totaling over two million reviews from 50,000 distinct accommodations. Secondly, we propose an innovative approach for personalized review ranking. Our method employs contrastive learning to intricately capture the relationship between a review and the contextual information of its respective reviewer. Through a comprehensive experimental study, we demonstrate that our approach surpasses several baselines across all reported metrics. Augmented by a comparative analysis, we showcase the efficacy of our method in elevating personalized review ranking. The implications of our research extend beyond the travel domain, with potential applications in other sectors where personalized review ranking is paramount, such as online e-commerce platforms.

Helpful reviews have been essential for the success of e-commerce services, as they help customers make quick purchase decisions and benefit the merchants in their sales. While many reviews are informative, others provide little value and may contain spam, excessive appraisal, or unexpected biases. With the large volume of reviews and their uneven quality, the problem of detecting helpful reviews has drawn much attention lately. Existing methods for identifying helpful reviews primarily focus on review text and ignore the two key factors of (1) who post the reviews and (2) when the reviews are posted. Moreover, the helpfulness votes suffer from scarcity for less popular products and recently submitted (a.k.a., cold-start) reviews. To address these challenges, we introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history of the reviewers, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness. We conduct experiments on our dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating these factors and report improved results compared to several well-established baselines.

As the number of accepted papers at AI and ML conferences reaches into the thousands, it has become unclear how researchers access and read research publications. In this paper, we investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research, particularly the citation counts of papers they share. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023, alongside controls precisely matched by 9 key covariates. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers, with median citation counts 2-3 times higher than those of the control group. Additionally, the study delves into the geographic, gender, and institutional diversity of highlighted authors. Given these findings, we advocate for a responsible approach to curation, encouraging influencers to uphold the journalistic standard that includes showcasing diverse research topics, authors, and institutions.

Recent developments in LLMs offer new opportunities for assisting authors in improving their work. In this paper, we envision a use case where authors can receive LLM-generated reviews that uncover weak points in the current draft. While initial methods for automated review generation already exist, these methods tend to produce reviews that lack detail, and they do not cover the range of opinions that human reviewers produce. To address this shortcoming, we propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2. Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address. We show that this leads to more detailed reviews that better cover the range of aspects that human reviewers identify in the draft. As part of the research, we generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts, which we make available as a resource for future research.

Peer review in machine learning is under growing pressure from rising submission volume and limited reviewer time. Most LLM-based reviewing systems read only the manuscript and generate comments from the paper's own narrative. This makes their outputs sensitive to presentation quality and leaves them weak when the evidence needed for review lies in related work or released code. We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification. Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository under bounded budgets to test central empirical claims. It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive. In a case study on CompGCN, FactReview reproduces results that closely match those reported for link prediction and node classification, yet also shows that the paper's broader performance claim across tasks is not fully sustained: on MUTAG graph classification, the reproduced result is 88.4%, whereas the strongest baseline reported in the paper remains 92.6%. The claim is therefore only partially supported. More broadly, this case suggests that AI is most useful in peer review not as a final decision-maker, but as a tool for gathering evidence and helping reviewers produce more evidence-grounded assessments. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/Review-Assistant.

Modern Code Review (MCR) is an informal tool-assisted quality assurance practice. It relies on the asynchronous communication among the authors of code changes and reviewers, who are developers that provide feedback. However, from candidate developers, some are able to provide better feedback than others given a particular context. The selection of reviewers is thus an important task, which can benefit from automated support. Many approaches have been proposed in this direction, using for example data from code review repositories to recommend reviewers. In this paper, we propose the use of team-related features to improve the performance of predictions that are helpful to build code reviewer recommenders, with our target predictions being the identification of reviewers that would participate in a review and the provided amount of feedback. We evaluate the prediction power of these features, which are related to code ownership, workload, and team relationship. This evaluation was done by carefully addressing challenges imposed by the MCR domain, such as temporal aspects of the dataset and unbalanced classes. Moreover, given that it is currently unknown how much past data is needed for building MCR prediction models with acceptable performance, we explore the amount of past data used to build prediction models. Our results show that, individually, features related to code ownership have the best prediction power. However, based on feature selection, we conclude that all proposed features together with lines of code can make the best predictions for both reviewer participation and amount of feedback. Regarding the amount of past data, the timeframes of 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of data produce similar results. Therefore, models can be trained considering short timeframes, thus reducing the computational costs with negligible impact in the prediction performance ...

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

We present the Influence Flower, a new visual metaphor for the influence profile of academic entities, including people, projects, institutions, conferences, and journals. While many tools quantify influence, we aim to expose the flow of influence between entities. The Influence Flower is an ego-centric graph, with a query entity placed in the centre. The petals are styled to reflect the strength of influence to and from other entities of the same or different type. For example, one can break down the incoming and outgoing influences of a research lab by research topics. The Influence Flower uses a recent snapshot of Microsoft Academic Graph, consisting of 212million authors, their 176 million publications, and 1.2 billion citations. An interactive web app, Influence Map, is constructed around this central metaphor for searching and curating visualisations. We also propose a visual comparison method that highlights change in influence patterns over time. We demonstrate through several case studies that the Influence Flower supports data-driven inquiries about the following: researchers' careers over time; paper(s) and projects, including those with delayed recognition; the interdisciplinary profile of a research institution; and the shifting topical trends in conferences. We also use this tool on influence data beyond academic citations, by contrasting the academic and Twitter activities of a researcher.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Recommendation systems (RS) help users find interested content and connect authors with their target audience. Most research in RS tends to focus either on predicting users' immediate feedback (like click-through rate) accurately or improving users' long-term engagement. However, they ignore the influence for authors and the lifelong interaction value (LIV) of user-author pairs, which is particularly crucial for improving the prosperity of social community in short-video platforms. Currently, reinforcement learning (RL) can optimize long-term benefits and has been widely applied in RS. In this paper, we introduce RL to Reinforce Lifelong Interaction Value of User-Author pairs (RLIV-UA) based on each interaction of UA pairs. To address the long intervals between UA interactions and the large scale of the UA space, we propose a novel Sparse Cross-Request Interaction Markov Decision Process (SCRI-MDP) and introduce an Adjacent State Approximation (ASA) method to construct RL training samples. Additionally, we introduce Multi-Task Critic Learning (MTCL) to capture the progressive nature of UA interactions (click -> follow -> gift), where denser interaction signals are leveraged to compensate for the learning of sparse labels. Finally, an auxiliary supervised learning task is designed to enhance the convergence of the RLIV-UA model. In offline experiments and online A/B tests, the RLIV-UA model achieves both higher user satisfaction and higher platform profits than compared methods.

Agentic code review in terminal-based environments enables early feedback during local development before pull request creation. However, existing evaluations remain performance-centric and fail to capture the dynamic behaviors of repository-grounded agentic reviewers. Understanding these behaviors is critical for identifying how agentic reviewers succeed, fail, and incur hidden operational costs in practice. Then, we analyze the reviewers' behavior based on their trajectories. Our results show that agentic reviewers achieve higher review precision but incur substantial exploration and validation overhead, while successful reviews are associated with stronger planning and less downstream validation. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trajectory-aware and cost-sensitive evaluation of future agentic code review systems.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Data-efficient pretraining has shown tremendous potential to elevate scaling laws. This paper argues that effective pretraining data should be curated at the group level, treating a set of data points as a whole rather than as independent contributors. To achieve that, we propose Group-Level Data Influence Modeling (Group-MATES), a novel data-efficient pretraining method that captures and optimizes group-level data utility. Specifically, Group-MATES collects oracle group-level influences by locally probing the pretraining model with data sets. It then fine-tunes a relational data influence model to approximate oracles as relationship-weighted aggregations of individual influences. The fine-tuned model selects the data subset by maximizing its group-level influence prediction, with influence-aware clustering to enable efficient inference. Experiments on the DCLM benchmark demonstrate that Group-MATES achieves a 10% relative core score improvement on 22 downstream tasks over DCLM-Baseline and 5% over individual-influence-based methods, establishing a new state-of-the-art. Further analyses highlight the effectiveness of relational data influence models in capturing intricate interactions between data points.

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review to complement human judgment with systematic and consistent assessments. ReviewerToo supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria, and can be partially or fully integrated into real conference workflows. We validate ReviewerToo on a carefully curated dataset of 1,963 paper submissions from ICLR 2025, where our experiments with the gpt-oss-120b model achieves 81.8% accuracy for the task of categorizing a paper as accept/reject compared to 83.9% for the average human reviewer. Additionally, ReviewerToo-generated reviews are rated as higher quality than the human average by an LLM judge, though still trailing the strongest expert contributions. Our analysis highlights domains where AI reviewers excel (e.g., fact-checking, literature coverage) and where they struggle (e.g., assessing methodological novelty and theoretical contributions), underscoring the continued need for human expertise. Based on these findings, we propose guidelines for integrating AI into peer-review pipelines, showing how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts. Our work provides a foundation for systematic, hybrid peer-review systems that scale with the growth of scientific publishing.

Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, both as automated reviewers and as assistants to human reviewers. As model-generated reviews enter public data and future training corpora, AI peer review can become recursive: later reviewers learn from judgments produced by earlier models. We study one step of this feedback loop in a controlled setting. Starting from Llama 3.1 8B, we first fine-tune a reviewer on official ICLR reviews from 2018--2023 and then train four successor models on ICLR 2024 data with systematically varied mixtures of official and model-generated reviews. Our study shows that introducing synthetic reviews compresses rating distributions and reduces both same-paper and corpus-level semantic diversity. We call this pattern scientific-judgment collapse. To mitigate this failure mode, we introduce TrustReviewer, an open-source LLM-based system for generating peer reviews of AI and machine learning papers. TrustReviewer intervenes at two complementary stages. For training-time prevention, we train the core reviewer in a single stage on a curated corpus designed to reduce low-quality and semantically degenerate supervision. For test-time correction, paired activation steering aims to further mitigate residual tendencies toward collapsed judgments without further training or additional expert annotation. Together, these results characterize a concrete risk of recursive reviewer training and provide practical interventions for preserving judgment diversity and improving recommendation alignment in AI-assisted scientific evaluation.

Training data attribution (TDA) aims to identify training examples that shape model behavior, but its intervention value depends on both which examples are selected and how they are modified. Influence functions (IF) estimate behavioral changes under infinitesimal reweighting, yet IF-selected examples often show limited advantages over random selection under conventional weight-based interventions. This raises the question of whether influential examples lack intervention value or whether reweighting fails to realize their behavioral leverage.We introduce influence-guided response rewriting, which uses IF to identify intervention targets and replaces their responses with behavior-aligned or behavior-opposed supervision while keeping instructions fixed. Across four open-weight LLMs, we compare rewriting and reweighting on the same influence-selected examples using epistemic abstention as our primary testbed. Response rewriting produces stronger, more persistent, and bidirectional behavioral shifts, while reweighting the same examples yields weak and inconsistent effects. Further analyses show that influence-selected examples provide greater rewriting leverage than alternative selectors, with changes remaining concentrated on target-relevant behaviors. The same qualitative contrast extends to safety refusal. These results distinguish the local reweighting effects captured by influence estimates from the broader intervention leverage of the examples they identify, motivating intervention-aware evaluation of TDA methods.

Online social media platforms enable influencers to distribute content and quickly capture audience reactions, significantly shaping their promotional strategies and advertising agreements. Understanding how sentiment dynamics and emotional contagion unfold among followers is vital for influencers and marketers, as these processes shape engagement, brand perception, and purchasing behavior. While sentiment analysis tools effectively track sentiment fluctuations, dynamical models explaining their evolution remain limited, often neglecting network structures and interactions both among blogs and between their topic-focused follower groups. In this study, we tracked influential tech-focused Weibo bloggers over six months, quantifying follower sentiment from text-mined feedback. By treating each blogger's audience as a single "macro-agent", we find that sentiment trajectories follow the principle of iterative averaging -- a foundational mechanism in many dynamical models of opinion formation, a theoretical framework at the intersection of social network analysis and dynamical systems theory. The sentiment evolution aligns closely with opinion-dynamics models, particularly modified versions of the classical French-DeGroot model that incorporate delayed perception and distinguish between expressed and private opinions. The inferred influence structures reveal interdependencies among blogs that may arise from homophily, whereby emotionally similar users subscribe to the same blogs and collectively shape the shared sentiment expressed within these communities.

Training data influence estimation methods quantify the contribution of training documents to a model's output, making them a promising source of information for example-based explanations. As humans cannot interpret thousands of documents, only a small subset of the training data can be presented as an explanation. Although the choice of which documents to include directly affects explanation quality, previous evaluations of such systems have largely ignored any selection strategies. To address this, we propose a novel selection relevance score, a retraining-free metric that quantifies how useful a set of examples is for explaining a model's output. We validate this score through fine-tuning experiments, confirming that it can predict whether a set of examples supports or undermines the model's predictions. Using this metric, we further show that common selection strategies often underperform random selection. Motivated by this finding, we propose a strategy that balances influence and representativeness, enabling better use of selection budgets than naively selecting the highest-ranking examples.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as pre-review agents, if not as fully autonomous peer-review agents. While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process. The majority of the studies performing a systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs generating reviews across science disciplines miss the mark on addressing the alignment/misalignment of reviews along with the utility of LLM generated reviews when compared against publication outcomes such as Citations, Hit-papers, Novelty, and Disruption. This paper presents an experimental study in which we gathered ground-truth reviewer ratings from OpenReview and used various frontier open-weight LLMs to generate reviews of papers to gauge the safety and reliability of incorporating LLMs into the scientific review pipeline. Our findings demonstrate the utility of frontier open-weight LLMs as pre-review screening agents despite highlighting fundamental misalignment risks when deployed as autonomous reviewers. Our results show that all models exhibit weak correlation with human peer reviewers (0.15), with systematic overestimation bias of 3-5 points and uniformly high confidence scores (8.0-9.0/10) despite prediction errors. However, we also observed that LLM reviews correlate more strongly with post-publication metrics than with human scores, suggesting potential utility as pre-review screening tools. Our findings highlight the potential and address the pitfalls of automating peer reviews with language models. We open-sourced our dataset D_{LMRSD} to help the research community expand the safety framework of automating scientific reviews.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.

Within twelve days of launch, an AI-native social platform exhibits extreme attention concentration, hierarchical role separation, and one-way attention flow, consistent with the hypothesis that stratification in agent ecosystems can emerge rapidly rather than gradually. We analyse publicly observable traces from a 12-day window of Moltbook (28 January -- 8 February 2026), comprising 20,040 posts and 192,410 comments from 15,083 accounts across 759 submolts. We construct co-participation and directed-comment graphs and report reciprocity, community structure, and centrality, alongside descriptive content themes. Under a commenter--post-author tie definition, interaction is strongly asymmetric (reciprocity ~1%), and HITS centrality separates cleanly into hub and authority roles, consistent with broadcast-style attention rather than mutual exchange. Engagement is highly unequal: attention is far more concentrated than production (upvote Gini = 0.992 vs. posting Gini = 0.601), and early-arriving accounts accumulate substantially higher cumulative upvotes prior to exposure-time correction, suggesting rich-get-richer dynamics. Participation is brief and bursty (median observed lifespan 2.48 minutes; 54.8% of posts occur within six peak UTC hours). Embedding-based topic modelling identifies diverse thematic clusters, including technical discussion of memory and identity, onboarding messages, and formulaic token-minting content. These results provide an early structural baseline for large-scale agent--agent social interaction and suggest that familiar forms of hierarchy, amplification, and role differentiation can arise on compressed timescales in agent-facing platforms.

Code review helps maintain software quality before code integration, but it also imposes a substantial workload on human reviewers. As generative artificial intelligence becomes part of software development, code review is shifting from a primarily human review process toward AI-supported review processes in which large language model (LLM) reviewers and AI agent reviewers participate alongside human reviewers. However, we still lack empirical evidence on how this transition affects review efficiency and review quality. In this paper, we study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras: human-centric review, LLM-assisted review, and agentic code review. We identify three AI reviewer adoption practices: Gradual AI Adoption, Rapid LLM Adoption, and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. We further model pull request review discussions as reviewer interaction sequences to characterize how human, LLM, and AI agent reviewers collaborate during the review process. Our results show that agent-involved collaboration patterns, especially reviews initiated by AI agents or involving multiple AI agents, are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. However, these efficiency gains do not translate into better review quality. We also find that review activity and pull request type remain important across eras, while human-AI collaboration patterns become the strongest explanatory factor for review efficiency once LLM and AI agent reviewers participate. These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.

Bug bounty platforms (e.g., HackerOne, BugCrowd) leverage crowd-sourced vulnerability discovery to improve continuous coverage, reduce the cost of discovery, and serve as an integral complement to internal red teams. With the rise of AI-generated bug reports, little work exists to help bug hunters understand why these reports are labeled as invalid. To improve report quality and reduce reviewers' burden, it is critical to predict invalid reports and interpret invalid reasons. In this work, we conduct an empirical study with the purpose of helping bug hunters understand the validity of reports. We collect a dataset of 9,942 disclosed bug bounty reports, including 1,400 invalid reports, and evaluate whether state-of-the-art large language models can identify invalid reports. While models such as GPT-5, DeepSeek, and a fine-tuned RoBERTa achieve strong overall accuracy, they consistently struggle to detect invalid cases, showing a tendency to over-accept reports. To improve invalidity detection, we build a taxonomy of rejection reasons for Information Disclosure vulnerabilities and incorporate it into a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. This approach substantially improves classification consistency and reduces bias. We also examine whether reviewer decisions may be influenced by factors beyond the content of the report. Our analysis shows that reporters with higher reputations tend to receive more favorable outcomes in borderline cases, suggesting that perceived expertise can influence review judgments. Overall, our findings highlight the challenges of invalid report identification and show that combining LLMs with structured reviewer knowledge can support more transparent and consistent vulnerability report review.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

The growing number of submitted papers has motivated the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support and augment the peer review process, particularly in terms of improving its speed and scalability. Yet, it remains unknown whether LLMs engage with scientific manuscripts in the same manner as human reviewers, or whether they merely produce review-looking text. To address this, we introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a novel framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement. To complement the PRAIB framework, we conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers. Spanning the 2021--2025 period, these machine-generated reviews are compared against original human feedback across diverse prompting strategies to identify systematic behavioral divergences. Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers: LLM ratings are less variable, positively biased, and overconfident, and their cross-reference patterns are model-dependent and distinct from human norms. Furthermore, when evaluated through PRAIB, we observe that LLMs tend to generate longer, more complex reviews, yet frequently overlook the atomic weaknesses noted by human reviewers. By characterizing where and how LLMs reviewing behavior departs from human norms, PRAIB provides the community with a diagnostic tool for identifying which aspects of the review process LLMs can reliably support today and which require further development before deployment.

The rapid growth of submissions to top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) conferences has prompted many venues to transition from closed to open review platforms. Some have fully embraced open peer reviews, allowing public visibility throughout the process, while others adopt hybrid approaches, such as releasing reviews only after final decisions or keeping reviews private despite using open peer review systems. In this work, we analyze the strengths and limitations of these models, highlighting the growing community interest in transparent peer review. To support this discussion, we examine insights from Paper Copilot, a website launched two years ago to aggregate and analyze AI / ML conference data while engaging a global audience. The site has attracted over 200,000 early-career researchers, particularly those aged 18-34 from 177 countries, many of whom are actively engaged in the peer review process. Drawing on our findings, this position paper advocates for a more transparent, open, and well-regulated peer review aiming to foster greater community involvement and propel advancements in the field.

The peer review process is crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of scholarly work, yet assigning suitable reviewers remains a significant challenge. Traditional manual methods are labor-intensive and often ineffective, leading to nonconstructive or biased reviews. This paper introduces the exHarmony (eHarmony but for connecting experts to manuscripts) benchmark, designed to address these challenges by re-imagining the Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) as a retrieval task. Utilizing the extensive data from OpenAlex, we propose a novel approach that considers a host of signals from the authors, most similar experts, and the citation relations as potential indicators for a suitable reviewer for a manuscript. This approach allows us to develop a standard benchmark dataset for evaluating the reviewer assignment problem without needing explicit labels. We benchmark various methods, including traditional lexical matching, static neural embeddings, and contextualized neural embeddings, and introduce evaluation metrics that assess both relevance and diversity in the context of RAP. Our results indicate that while traditional methods perform reasonably well, contextualized embeddings trained on scholarly literature show the best performance. The findings underscore the importance of further research to enhance the diversity and effectiveness of reviewer assignments.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

Short-video platforms have gained immense popularity, captivating the interest of millions, if not billions, of users globally. Recently, researchers have highlighted the significance of analyzing the propagation of short-videos, which typically involves discovering commercial values, public opinions, user behaviors, etc. This paper proposes a new Short-video Propagation Influence Rating (SPIR) task and aims to promote SPIR from both the dataset and method perspectives. First, we propose a new Cross-platform Short-Video (XS-Video) dataset, which aims to provide a large-scale and real-world short-video propagation network across various platforms to facilitate the research on short-video propagation. Our XS-Video dataset includes 117,720 videos, 381,926 samples, and 535 topics across 5 biggest Chinese platforms, annotated with the propagation influence from level 0 to 9. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale short-video dataset that contains cross-platform data or provides all of the views, likes, shares, collects, fans, comments, and comment content. Second, we propose a Large Graph Model (LGM) named NetGPT, based on a novel three-stage training mechanism, to bridge heterogeneous graph-structured data with the powerful reasoning ability and knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs). Our NetGPT can comprehend and analyze the short-video propagation graph, enabling it to predict the long-term propagation influence of short-videos. Comprehensive experimental results evaluated by both classification and regression metrics on our XS-Video dataset indicate the superiority of our method for SPIR.

The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, especially compared to human reviewers at catching scientific gaps, remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce PRISM (Peer Review Intelligence via Structured Multi-dimensional assessment), a benchmarking framework that evaluates review quality across four dimensions: Depth of Analysis, Novelty Assessment,Flaw Identification & Major Issues Prioritization, and Multi-dimensional Constructiveness. Unlike most existing evaluations based on surface-level metrics like ROUGE and BLEU, or unconstrained LLM-as-a-judge prompting that conflates fluency with rigor, PRISM grounds each dimension in argument mining, retrieval-augmented verification, and consensus-based scoring. We apply PRISM to benchmark five leading automated reviewer systems and human reviewers on a stratified corpus of reviews from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. The results reveal that LLMs can match or beat human reviewers on individual dimensions: comparable depth of analysis, stronger novelty verification, and highly accurate critique prioritization. However, no single system consistently matches the balanced performance of the human baseline across all dimensions at once. Each exhibits a distinct specialization profile with characteristic blind spots -- failure modes that aggregate metrics miss entirely. The implication is that LLM reviewers are best understood as targeted supplements to human review, effective within specific dimensions, but unreliable as standalone replacements. Our demo and key results can be found at https://khanhthanhdev.github.io/prism-page/.

As the open-weight AI landscape continues to proliferate-with model development, significant investment, and user interest-it becomes increasingly important to predict which models will ultimately drive innovation and shape AI ecosystems. Building on parallels with citation dynamics in scientific literature, we propose a framework to quantify how an open-weight model's influence evolves. Specifically, we adapt the model introduced by Wang et al. for scientific citations, using three key parameters-immediacy, longevity, and relative fitness-to track the cumulative number of fine-tuned models of an open-weight model. Our findings reveal that this citation-style approach can effectively capture the diverse trajectories of open-weight model adoption, with most models fitting well and outliers indicating unique patterns or abrupt jumps in usage.

Matching submissions with suitable reviewers at scale is a growing challenge for major venues, yet existing approaches either rely on coarse proxy signals that conflate general relatedness with true suitability, or require expensive human annotations that are difficult to scale for training. We propose MERIT, a two-stage framework that bridges this gap by converting criterion-level expertise matching into scalable suitability supervision. In the first stage, we train a reviewer assessor via reinforcement learning to identify the expertise dimensions a paper requires, match them against the reviewer's prior work, and produce a suitability decision, with rewards provided by an LLM judge guided by paper-specific expertise rubrics. In the second stage, we distill the assessor's predictions into an embedding-based retriever for efficient large-scale assignment. Experiments show that our 4B reviewer assessor outperforms larger general-purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the resulting retriever achieves state-of-the-art performance across LR-Bench and the CMU Gold dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/Luli3220/MERIT.

Great scientists have strong judgement and foresight, closely tied to what we call scientific taste. Here, we use the term to refer to the capacity to judge and propose research ideas with high potential impact. However, most relative research focuses on improving an AI scientist's executive capability, while enhancing an AI's scientific taste remains underexplored. In this work, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale community signals as supervision, and formulate scientific taste learning as a preference modeling and alignment problem. For preference modeling, we train Scientific Judge on 700K field- and time-matched pairs of high- vs. low-citation papers to judge ideas. For preference alignment, using Scientific Judge as a reward model, we train a policy model, Scientific Thinker, to propose research ideas with high potential impact. Experiments show Scientific Judge outperforms SOTA LLMs (e.g., GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro) and generalizes to future-year test, unseen fields, and peer-review preference. Furthermore, Scientific Thinker proposes research ideas with higher potential impact than baselines. Our findings show that AI can learn scientific taste, marking a key step toward reaching human-level AI scientists.

Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.

Identifying the training data samples that most influence a generated image is a critical task in understanding diffusion models, yet existing influence estimation methods are constrained to small-scale or LoRA-tuned models due to computational limitations. As diffusion models scale up, these methods become impractical. To address this challenge, we propose DMin (Diffusion Model influence), a scalable framework for estimating the influence of each training data sample on a given generated image. By leveraging efficient gradient compression and retrieval techniques, DMin reduces storage requirements from 339.39 TB to only 726 MB and retrieves the top-k most influential training samples in under 1 second, all while maintaining performance. Our empirical results demonstrate DMin is both effective in identifying influential training samples and efficient in terms of computational and storage requirements.

Recommender systems increasingly aim to combine signals from both user reviews and purchase (or other interaction) behaviors. While user-written comments provide explicit insights about preferences, merging these textual representations from large language models (LLMs) with graph-based embeddings of user actions remains a challenging task. In this work, we propose a framework that employs both a Graph Neural Network (GNN)-based model and an LLM to produce review-aware representations, preserving review semantics while mitigating textual noise. Our approach utilizes a hybrid objective that balances user-item interactions against text-derived features, ensuring that user's both behavioral and linguistic signals are effectively captured. We evaluate this method on multiple datasets from diverse application domains, demonstrating consistent improvements over a baseline GNN-based recommender model. Notably, our model achieves significant gains in recommendation accuracy when review data is sparse or unevenly distributed. These findings highlight the importance of integrating LLM-driven textual feedback with GNN-derived user behavioral patterns to develop robust, context-aware recommender systems.

Quantifying the impact of training data points is crucial for understanding the outputs of machine learning models and for improving the transparency of the AI pipeline. The influence function is a principled and popular data attribution method, but its computational cost often makes it challenging to use. This issue becomes more pronounced in the setting of large language models and text-to-image models. In this work, we propose DataInf, an efficient influence approximation method that is practical for large-scale generative AI models. Leveraging an easy-to-compute closed-form expression, DataInf outperforms existing influence computation algorithms in terms of computational and memory efficiency. Our theoretical analysis shows that DataInf is particularly well-suited for parameter-efficient fine-tuning techniques such as LoRA. Through systematic empirical evaluations, we show that DataInf accurately approximates influence scores and is orders of magnitude faster than existing methods. In applications to RoBERTa-large, Llama-2-13B-chat, and stable-diffusion-v1.5 models, DataInf effectively identifies the most influential fine-tuning examples better than other approximate influence scores. Moreover, it can help to identify which data points are mislabeled.

Community-based fact-checking can reduce the spread of annotated misleading posts, but whether it produces lasting behavioral change among corrected authors remains unclear. Here, we conduct a large-scale quasi-experimental study of the Community Notes system on X (formerly Twitter), tracking four weeks of activity before and after note display for 19,854 accounts and 57,935 corrections (noted posts and matched controls), covering 11,909,591 original posts. Difference-in-Differences estimates show that note display is followed by an average 2.9% increase in corrected accounts' original-post activity. This aggregate conceals two divergent trajectories. Accounts corrected only once reduce their activity by 2.4% and subsequently publish less toxic and less misleading content. Repeatedly corrected accounts, which constitute 28.6% of corrected accounts but produce 73.4% of fact-checked posts, instead increase their activity by 4.4% after their first correction and show no detectable response to later ones. They exhibit no comparable content improvement, and instead publish more highly misleading posts, cite lower-quality domains, and post more political content. Community notes can thus constrain individual misleading posts without durably improving the behavior of the accounts most responsible for them, indicating that correcting content and changing its producers are distinct objectives for platform design.

Natural-language critiques provide supervision beyond scalar rewards for non-verifiable generation, which lacks deterministic verifiers. In critique-guided refinement, a critic gives feedback on an initial response and an actor revises it. However, final revision quality does not reveal whether the critique was actually useful: a capable actor may improve without following the feedback, while valid feedback may fail if the actor cannot execute it. We frame critique as actor-conditioned revision guidance, where usefulness depends on whether the feedback helps the target actor address the intended weakness. We introduce TAIScore (Targeted Actionable Improvement Score), a reward that evaluates the instruction, initial response, critique, and revision together, assessing whether the critique targets a real weakness, whether the actor follows it, and whether the intended aspect improves. We use this reward to train an actor-tailored critic with GRPO, and use critique-guided refinements to construct DPO preference pairs for the actor, forming a co-evolving critic-actor loop where the critic adapts to the actor's changing capability. Experiments show that an 8B critic trained with TAIScore outperforms both a zero-shot 120B critic and critics trained with outcome-only or critique-only reward signals. Co-evolving the critic and actor further improves performance, suggesting that effective critique supervision should adapt as the actor changes.

As political polarization in the United States continues to rise, the question of whether polarized individuals can fruitfully cooperate becomes pressing. Although diversity of individual perspectives typically leads to superior team performance on complex tasks, strong political perspectives have been associated with conflict, misinformation and a reluctance to engage with people and perspectives beyond one's echo chamber. It is unclear whether self-selected teams of politically diverse individuals will create higher or lower quality outcomes. In this paper, we explore the effect of team political composition on performance through analysis of millions of edits to Wikipedia's Political, Social Issues, and Science articles. We measure editors' political alignments by their contributions to conservative versus liberal articles. A survey of editors validates that those who primarily edit liberal articles identify more strongly with the Democratic party and those who edit conservative ones with the Republican party. Our analysis then reveals that polarized teams---those consisting of a balanced set of politically diverse editors---create articles of higher quality than politically homogeneous teams. The effect appears most strongly in Wikipedia's Political articles, but is also observed in Social Issues and even Science articles. Analysis of article "talk pages" reveals that politically polarized teams engage in longer, more constructive, competitive, and substantively focused but linguistically diverse debates than political moderates. More intense use of Wikipedia policies by politically diverse teams suggests institutional design principles to help unleash the power of politically polarized teams.

Peer assessment has been widely applied across diverse academic fields over the last few decades and has demonstrated its effectiveness. However, the advantages of peer assessment can only be achieved with high-quality peer reviews. Previous studies have found that high-quality review comments usually comprise several features (e.g., contain suggestions, mention problems, use a positive tone). Thus, researchers have attempted to evaluate peer-review comments by detecting different features using various machine learning and deep learning models. However, there is no single study that investigates using a multi-task learning (MTL) model to detect multiple features simultaneously. This paper presents two MTL models for evaluating peer-review comments by leveraging the state-of-the-art pre-trained language representation models BERT and DistilBERT. Our results demonstrate that BERT-based models significantly outperform previous GloVe-based methods by around 6% in F1-score on tasks of detecting a single feature, and MTL further improves performance while reducing model size.

Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.

Peer review is essential for scientific progress but faces growing challenges due to increasing submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical depth, often generating superficial or generic feedback lacking the insights characteristic of high-quality human reviews. We introduce ReviewRL, a reinforcement learning framework for generating comprehensive and factually grounded scientific paper reviews. Our approach combines: (1) an ArXiv-MCP retrieval-augmented context generation pipeline that incorporates relevant scientific literature, (2) supervised fine-tuning that establishes foundational reviewing capabilities, and (3) a reinforcement learning procedure with a composite reward function that jointly enhances review quality and rating accuracy. Experiments on ICLR 2025 papers demonstrate that ReviewRL significantly outperforms existing methods across both rule-based metrics and model-based quality assessments. ReviewRL establishes a foundational framework for RL-driven automatic critique generation in scientific discovery, demonstrating promising potential for future development in this domain. The implementation of ReviewRL will be released at GitHub.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is increasingly treated as an important safety layer for frontier reasoning models. Most monitorability evaluations study explicit-influence settings: setups where the prompt directly incentivizes the model to hide something, e.g., by instructing it to perform a hidden side-task. A complementary axis for CoT-monitor evaluations is implicit-influence settings, where the prompt contains no instruction to hide, but the model's behavior is still shaped by features of the task or context, e.g. an irrelevant detail about a candidate that biases a hiring rating. We introduce the first benchmark that directly compares CoT monitorability under the two regimes. We test how model behavior changes in the presence of a nudge to choose a particular option. The nudge is delivered either as a casual aside (implicit), or as a direct instruction to act on the nudge and to conceal having done so (explicit). The benchmark spans four task formats (binary choice, numeric rating, multiple-choice QA, open-ended coding) and seven frontier extended-thinking models. Under explicit influence, a CoT monitor detects 60-94% of behavior shifts: even models instructed to conceal it leak the instruction into their CoT. Under implicit influence, the same factors still shift behavior, but detection falls by 41-46 percentage points in two of our four settings. Realistic system-prompt additions (of the kind a developer might deploy to reduce off-topic bias) lower implicit detection further, to as low as 5%, while preserving the behavioral influence itself. These results suggest that monitorability estimates obtained in explicit-influence settings may over-estimate monitorability, and that monitorability can be further decreased by well-intentioned deployment choices. Our benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/agatha-duzan/implicit-vs-explicit-influence

The International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) is the premier international conference in the area of neural networks theory, analysis, and applications. The 2025 edition of the conference comprised 5,526 paper submissions, 7,877 active reviewers, 426 area chairs, 2,152 accepted papers, and more than 2,300 attendees. This represents a growth of about 100% in terms of submissions, 200% in terms of reviewers, and over 50% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous edition. In this paper, we describe several key aspects of the whole review process, including a strategy for ranking the scores provided by the reviewers by evaluating a score index and a calibrated version used experimentally to remove reviewer-specific bias from reviews.

Online reviews play a pivotal role in influencing consumer decisions across various domains, from purchasing products to selecting hotels or restaurants. However, the sheer volume of reviews -- often containing repetitive or irrelevant content -- leads to information overload, making it challenging for users to extract meaningful insights. Traditional opinion summarization models face challenges in handling long inputs and large volumes of reviews, while newer Large Language Model (LLM) approaches often fail to generate accurate and faithful summaries. To address those challenges, this paper introduces (1) a new dataset of long-form user reviews, each entity comprising over a thousand reviews, (2) two training-free LLM-based summarization approaches that scale to long inputs, and (3) automatic evaluation metrics. Our dataset of user reviews is paired with in-depth and unbiased critical summaries by domain experts, serving as a reference for evaluation. Additionally, our novel reference-free evaluation metrics provide a more granular, context-sensitive assessment of summary faithfulness. We benchmark several open-source and closed-source LLMs using our methods. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs still face challenges in balancing sentiment and format adherence in long-form summaries, though open-source models can narrow the gap when relevant information is retrieved in a focused manner.

Peer review, as a cornerstone of scientific research, ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly work by providing authors with objective feedback for refinement. However, in the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback, which provides limited assistance and leads to a more time-consuming review cycle. If authors can identify some specific weaknesses in their paper, they can not only address the reviewer's concerns but also improve their work. This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments. In this paper, we present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions behind them. We construct two types of graphs for each paper: the semantic mind graph, which captures the author's thought process, and the hierarchical background graph, which delineates the research domains related to the paper. A retrieval method is then designed to extract relevant content from both graphs, facilitating coherent explanations for the review comments. Extensive experiments show that SEAGraph excels in review comment understanding tasks, offering significant benefits to authors.

Online recommendation has traditionally taken place after a user enters a platform, which determines the candidate pool and the ranking shown to the user. LLM-based user agents enable a different recommendation process: a user specifies a need before choosing a platform, leaving platforms to compete for the user's attention, which we refer to as an agentic recommendation market. In our controlled LLM-based experiments across three product domains, we find this new setting of recommendation creates a tension between access and attention. Compared with traditional platform-centric recommendation, user-centric recommendation greatly expands the opportunity for relevant items to enter comparison; yet broader participation does not translate directly into effective exposure. Competition directly triggers platforms' strategic play: selectively positive explanations occupy 73--78% of first-ranked positions. When the user agent relates platforms' actions to subsequent user feedback, this share falls to 36--41%, while the chance of a user purchasing the relevant item increases. A user agent is therefore more than a ranker over a larger pool of candidates: its querying, ranking, and feedback mechanism governing who can compete, how scarce attention is allocated, and how earlier outcomes shape the evaluation of platforms directly affect user utility. Designing agentic recommendation therefore requires treating access, attention, and accountability as a joint mechanism design problem.

Code review is a critical software engineering practice where developers review code changes before integration to ensure code quality, detect defects, and improve maintainability. In recent years, AI agents that can understand code context, plan review actions, and interact with development environments have been increasingly integrated into the code review process. However, there is limited empirical evidence to compare the effectiveness of AI agents and human reviewers in collaborative workflows. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of 278,790 code review conversations across 300 open-source GitHub projects. In our study, we aim to compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents. We investigate human-AI collaboration patterns in review conversations to understand how interaction shapes review outcomes. Moreover, we analyze the adoption of code suggestions provided by human reviewers and AI agents into the codebase and how adopted suggestions change code quality. We find that human reviewers provide additional feedback than AI agents, including understanding, testing, and knowledge transfer. Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code. Moreover, code suggestions made by AI agents are adopted into the codebase at a significantly lower rate than suggestions proposed by human reviewers. Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers. When adopted, suggestions provided by AI agents produce significantly larger increases in code complexity and code size than suggestions provided by human reviewers. Our findings suggest that while AI agents can scale defect screening, human oversight remains critical for ensuring suggestion quality and providing contextual feedback that AI agents lack.

As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes. Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.

The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and limited accountability under compressed timelines. In response, conference organizers have introduced new policies and interventions to preserve review standards. Yet these ad-hoc changes often create further concerns and confusion about the review process, leaving how papers are ultimately accepted - and how practices evolve across years - largely opaque. We present Paper Copilot, a system that creates durable digital archives of peer reviews across a wide range of computer-science venues, an open dataset that enables researchers to study peer review at scale, and a large-scale empirical analysis of ICLR reviews spanning multiple years. By releasing both the infrastructure and the dataset, Paper Copilot supports reproducible research on the evolution of peer review. We hope these resources help the community track changes, diagnose failure modes, and inform evidence-based improvements toward a more robust, transparent, and reliable peer-review system.

The growing integration of large language models (LLMs) into the peer review process presents potential risks to the fairness and reliability of scholarly evaluation. While LLMs offer valuable assistance for reviewers with language refinement, there is growing concern over their use to generate substantive review content. Existing general AI-generated text detectors are vulnerable to paraphrasing attacks and struggle to distinguish between surface language refinement and substantial content generation, suggesting that they primarily rely on stylistic cues. When applied to peer review, this limitation can result in unfairly suspecting reviews with permissible AI-assisted language enhancement, while failing to catch deceptively humanized AI-generated reviews. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift from style-based to content-based detection. Specifically, we introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews, covering six distinct modes of human-AI collaboration. Furthermore, we develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, designed to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content. Our work offers a practical foundation for evaluating the use of LLMs in peer review, and contributes to the development of more precise, equitable, and reliable detection methods for real-world scholarly applications. Our code and data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Y1hanChen/COCONUTS.

When people share experiences online, they often express thoughts in two ways: a star rating and a written review. In sentiment analysis, ratings are widely used as convenient weak labels for textual sentiment, yet whether the two actually agree is rarely questioned. This study investigates sentiment-rating incongruence, where the sentiment expressed in review text differs from the sentiment implied by the assigned star rating, in Sri Lankan tourism attraction reviews. A dataset of 16,156 reviews from 2010 to 2023 is analyzed using a transformer-based sentiment pipeline that derives textual sentiment independently of assigned ratings. Incongruence occurs in 18.6% of reviews and falls into six directional patterns, with Conservative Rater and Obligatory 5-Star behaviors accounting for the majority of mismatches. Prevalence also varies across venue types, with museums showing the highest rates. Statistical tests, logistic regression, Random Forest, and SHAP analysis identify venue type, reviewer expertise, review length, and temporal factors as contributors to rating-text divergence. Overall, this study demonstrates that star ratings are not interchangeable with textual sentiment and should be validated before being treated as ground-truth labels in NLP.

Data attribution methods trace model behavior back to its training dataset, offering an effective approach to better understand ''black-box'' neural networks. While prior research has established quantifiable links between model output and training data in diverse settings, interpreting diffusion model outputs in relation to training samples remains underexplored. In particular, diffusion models operate over a sequence of timesteps instead of instantaneous input-output relationships in previous contexts, posing a significant challenge to extend existing frameworks to diffusion models directly. Notably, we present Diffusion-TracIn that incorporates this temporal dynamics and observe that samples' loss gradient norms are highly dependent on timestep. This trend leads to a prominent bias in influence estimation, and is particularly noticeable for samples trained on large-norm-inducing timesteps, causing them to be generally influential. To mitigate this effect, we introduce Diffusion-ReTrac as a re-normalized adaptation that enables the retrieval of training samples more targeted to the test sample of interest, facilitating a localized measurement of influence and considerably more intuitive visualization. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach through various evaluation metrics and auxiliary tasks, reducing the amount of generally influential samples to 1{3} of its original quantity.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study this important artifact. The dataset consists of 14.7K paper drafts and the corresponding accept/reject decisions in top-tier venues including ACL, NIPS and ICLR. The dataset also includes 10.7K textual peer reviews written by experts for a subset of the papers. We describe the data collection process and report interesting observed phenomena in the peer reviews. We also propose two novel NLP tasks based on this dataset and provide simple baseline models. In the first task, we show that simple models can predict whether a paper is accepted with up to 21% error reduction compared to the majority baseline. In the second task, we predict the numerical scores of review aspects and show that simple models can outperform the mean baseline for aspects with high variance such as 'originality' and 'impact'.

Automated ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of the ideas they produce, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models. Such judges are typically built ad hoc and validated, if at all, on human-authored papers rather than on the generated ideas they are meant to score. So, how do novelty judges perform? Not well. We present a systematic controlled study of novelty evaluation design choices. We first build an evaluation set automatically, mining OpenReview for passages where reviewers explicitly affirm or dispute a paper's originality and keeping only submissions with unanimous agreement at the extremes of their research area; we pair these with ideas from a vanilla LLM generator. Across six judges, we find that small prompt design choices have large consequences; e.g., simply telling the judge that reviewers found one idea novel and the other not can change its verdict on more than half of the identical idea pairs it is shown, shifting pairwise accuracy by over 50 points and occasionally pushing it below chance. The same change helps one judge and hurts another. Retrieval and larger reasoning budgets help little, and two purpose-built novelty evaluators are outperformed by our cheapest prompted baseline. These results raise questions about reported novelty gains of automated ideation systems, and call for robust novelty evaluation methods.

Personalized recommendation systems shape much of user choice online, yet their targeted nature makes separating out the value of recommendation and the underlying goods challenging. We build a discrete choice model that embeds recommendation-induced utility, low-rank heterogeneity, and flexible state dependence and apply the model to viewership data at Netflix. We exploit idiosyncratic variation introduced by the recommendation algorithm to identify and separately value these components as well as to recover model-free diversion ratios that we can use to validate our structural model. We use the model to evaluate counterfactuals that quantify the incremental engagement generated by personalized recommendations. First, we show that replacing the current recommender system with a matrix factorization or popularity-based algorithm would lead to 4% and 12% reduction in engagement, respectively, and decreased consumption diversity. Second, most of the consumption increase from recommendations comes from effective targeting, not mechanical exposure, with the largest gains for mid-popularity goods (as opposed to broadly appealing or very niche goods).

Generating natural language explanations for recommendations has become increasingly important in recommender systems. Traditional approaches typically treat user reviews as ground truth for explanations and focus on improving review prediction accuracy by designing various model architectures. However, due to limitations in data scale and model capability, these explanations often fail to meet key user-centric aspects such as factuality, personalization, and sentiment coherence, significantly reducing their overall helpfulness to users. In this paper, we propose a novel paradigm that refines initial explanations generated by existing explainable recommender models during the inference stage to enhance their quality in multiple aspects. Specifically, we introduce a multi-agent collaborative refinement framework based on large language models. To ensure alignment between the refinement process and user demands, we employ a plan-then-refine pattern to perform targeted modifications. To enable continuous improvements, we design a hierarchical reflection mechanism that provides feedback on the refinement process from both strategic and content perspectives. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework.

Mathematical researchers, especially those in early-career positions, face critical decisions about topic specialization with limited information about the collaborative environments of different research areas. The aim of this paper is to study how the popularity of a research topic is associated with the structure of that topic's collaboration network, as observed by a suite of measures capturing organizational structure at several scales. We apply these measures to 1,938 algorithmically discovered topics across 121,391 papers sourced from arXiv metadata during the period 2020--2025. Our analysis, which controls for the confounding effects of network size, reveals a structural dichotomy--we find that popular topics organize into modular "schools of thought," while niche topics maintain hierarchical core-periphery structures centered around established experts. This divide is not an artifact of scale, but represents a size-independent structural pattern correlated with popularity. We also document a "constraint reversal": after controlling for size, researchers in popular fields face greater structural constraints on collaboration opportunities, contrary to conventional expectations. Our findings suggest that topic selection is an implicit choice between two fundamentally different collaborative environments, each with distinct implications for a researcher's career. To make these structural patterns transparent to the research community, we developed the Math Research Compass (https://mathresearchcompass.com), an interactive platform providing data on topic popularity and collaboration patterns across mathematical topics.

We propose Collab-REC, a multi-agent framework designed to counteract popularity bias and enhance diversity in tourism recommendations. In our setting, three LLM-based agents: Personalization, Popularity, and Sustainability, generate city suggestions from complementary perspectives. A non-LLM moderator then merges and refines these proposals via multi-round negotiation, ensuring each agent's viewpoint is incorporated while penalizing spurious or repeated responses. Extensive experiments on European city queries using LLMs from different sizes and model families demonstrate that Collab-REC enhances diversity and overall relevance compared to a single-agent baseline, surfacing lesser-visited locales that are often overlooked. This balanced, context-aware approach addresses over-tourism and better aligns with user-provided constraints, highlighting the promise of multi-stakeholder collaboration in LLM-driven recommender systems. Code, data, and other artifacts are available here: https://github.com/ashmibanerjee/collab-rec, while the prompts used are included in the appendix.

When trying to gain better visibility into a machine learning model in order to understand and mitigate the associated risks, a potentially valuable source of evidence is: which training examples most contribute to a given behavior? Influence functions aim to answer a counterfactual: how would the model's parameters (and hence its outputs) change if a given sequence were added to the training set? While influence functions have produced insights for small models, they are difficult to scale to large language models (LLMs) due to the difficulty of computing an inverse-Hessian-vector product (IHVP). We use the Eigenvalue-corrected Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature (EK-FAC) approximation to scale influence functions up to LLMs with up to 52 billion parameters. In our experiments, EK-FAC achieves similar accuracy to traditional influence function estimators despite the IHVP computation being orders of magnitude faster. We investigate two algorithmic techniques to reduce the cost of computing gradients of candidate training sequences: TF-IDF filtering and query batching. We use influence functions to investigate the generalization patterns of LLMs, including the sparsity of the influence patterns, increasing abstraction with scale, math and programming abilities, cross-lingual generalization, and role-playing behavior. Despite many apparently sophisticated forms of generalization, we identify a surprising limitation: influences decay to near-zero when the order of key phrases is flipped. Overall, influence functions give us a powerful new tool for studying the generalization properties of LLMs.

Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) based methods provide promising approaches for generating synthetic data to enhance the self-training of Large Language Model (LLM) based multi-agent systems (MAS). These methods leverage Q-values to estimate individual agent contributions. However, relying solely on Q-values to identify informative data may misalign with the data synthesis objective, as the focus should be on selecting data that best enhances model training. To address this discrepancy, we propose Data Influence-oriented Tree Search (DITS), a novel framework that incorporates influence scores to guide both tree search and data selection. By leveraging influence scores, we effectively identify the most impactful data for system improvement, thereby enhancing model performance. Furthermore, we derive influence score estimation methods tailored for non-differentiable metrics, significantly reducing computational overhead by utilizing inference computations. Extensive experiments on eight multi-agent datasets demonstrate the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed methods. Notably, our findings reveal that allocating more inference resources to estimate influence scores, rather than Q-values, during data synthesis can more effectively and efficiently enhance model training.

Academic citations are widely used for evaluating research and tracing knowledge flows. Such uses typically rely on raw citation counts and neglect variability in citation types. In particular, citations can vary in their fidelity as original knowledge from cited studies may be paraphrased, summarized, or reinterpreted, possibly wrongly, leading to variation in how much information changes from cited to citing paper. In this study, we introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale. Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers, and applies supervised models to measure fidelity at the sentence level. Analyzing a large-scale multi-disciplinary dataset of approximately 13 million citation sentence pairs, we find that citation fidelity is higher when authors cite papers that are 1) more recent and intellectually close, 2) more accessible, and 3) the first author has a lower H-index and the author team is medium-sized. Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original. Our work reveals systematic differences in citation fidelity, underscoring the limitations of analyses that rely on citation quantity alone and the potential for distortion of evidence.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35\% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence. We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper based on accumulated evidence, as human reviewers do. In this paper, we explore how to enable an LLM-based review agent to perform such proactive investigation. We find that this can be naturally formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log. The structured review log serves as a workspace for the agent to track evidence and intermediate findings collected during review. Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions, outperforming prompt-based methods with much larger frontier LLMs by up to 39% and the strongest fine-tuned baseline by 16% relatively. It also attains the highest win rates against baselines in human evaluation.

The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in producing structured and coherent feedback, their capacity for critical reasoning, contextual grounding, and quality sensitivity remains limited. To systematically evaluate these aspects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics to assess LLM-generated reviews against human-written counterparts. We construct a large-scale benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five LLMs. Our findings show that LLMs perform well in descriptive and affirmational content, capturing the main contributions and methodologies of the original work, with GPT-4o highlighted as an illustrative example, generating 15.74% more entities than human reviewers in the strengths section of good papers in ICLR 2025. However, they consistently underperform in identifying weaknesses, raising substantive questions, and adjusting feedback based on paper quality. GPT-4o produces 59.42% fewer entities than real reviewers in the weaknesses and increases node count by only 5.7% from good to weak papers, compared to 50% in human reviews. Similar trends are observed across all conferences, years, and models, providing empirical foundations for understanding the merits and defects of LLM-generated reviews and informing the development of future LLM-assisted reviewing tools. Data, code, and more detailed results are publicly available at https://github.com/RichardLRC/Peer-Review.