Related papers: TADDLE: A Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Defic…

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. While recent work has focused on using LLMs to…

Peer review is crucial for advancing and improving science through constructive criticism. However, toxic feedback can discourage authors and hinder scientific progress. This work explores an important but underexplored area: detecting…

Modern analyst agents must reason over complex, high token inputs, including dozens of retrieved documents, tool outputs, and time sensitive data. While prior work has produced tool calling benchmarks and examined factuality in knowledge…

Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction. To address these issues, we developed Review Feedback Agent, a system leveraging…

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results across a range of natural language processing tasks, but their potential to generate harmful content has raised serious safety concerns. Current toxicity detectors primarily rely…

Peer review is central to scientific quality, yet reliance on simple heuristics -- lazy thinking -- has lowered standards. Prior work treats lazy thinking detection as a single-label task, but review segments may exhibit multiple issues,…

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality…

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…

The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review. In this work, we propose: 1. ReviewEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated…

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning…

Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of…

Despite the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in various reasoning tasks, they still struggle with table reasoning tasks, particularly in maintaining consistency throughout multi-step reasoning processes. While…

Machine learning models can perpetuate unintended biases from unfair and imbalanced datasets. Evaluating and debiasing these datasets and models is especially hard in text datasets where sensitive attributes such as race, gender, and sexual…

The increasing prevalence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly advanced text generation, but the human-like quality of LLM outputs presents major challenges in reliably distinguishing between human-authored and LLM-generated…

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with creative generation, and multi-agent frameworks that improve reasoning through interaction can paradoxically hinder creativity by inducing content homogenization. We introduce LLM Review, a…

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas,…

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale…

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has drawn urgent attention to the task of machine-generated text detection (MGTD). However, existing approaches struggle in complex real-world scenarios: zero-shot detectors rely heavily…

Conducting literature reviews for scientific papers is essential for understanding research, its limitations, and building on existing work. It is a tedious task which makes an automatic literature review generator appealing. Unfortunately,…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to evaluate text outputs of other LLMs, thereby influencing leaderboards and development decisions. However, concerns persist over the accuracy of these assessments and the potential…