Comparative Evaluation of LLM-Based Review Paradigms for Academic Paper Quality Assessment
arXiv:2610.41391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Growing submission volumes have renewed interest in using large language models (LLMs) to support peer review. It remains unclear how such evaluation should be structured, how much the model matters, and whether LLM scores predict research impact. We evaluate five paradigms across three input representations and three LLMs on 232 stratified ICLR 2025 submissions. Direct absolute rating matches comparative ranking on rank correlation with human scor
阅读原始来源
来源记录
研究分析
研究主张
论文标识：2610.41391。 来源描述：arXiv:2610.41391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Growing submission volumes have renewed interest in using large language models (LLMs) to support peer review. It remains unclear how such evaluation should be structured, how much the model matters, and whether LLM scores predict research impact. We evaluate five paradigms across three input representations and three LLMs on 232 stratified ICLR 2025 submissions. Direct absolute rating matches comparative ranking on rank correlation with human scor
评测与比较记录
可供比较的近期同类记录：“PharmAgents2: Towards Autonomous End-to-End Drug Discovery” (arXiv, 2026年11月6日)；“Align Before Aggregation: Basis-Consistent Federated LoRA under Heterogeneous Ranks” (arXiv, 2026年11月6日)。主题相近仅用于导航，未核验其是否属于同一需求或独立证据。
结论适用范围
结论只能在所述模型版本、任务、数据与推理预算内解释。社区票数、下载量或榜单位置不能证明另一工作流中的可靠性。
有效性与复现缺口
需核对样本选择、基线配置、不确定性、数据污染风险、负面结果以及代码或权重可获取性；此处没有本站复现实验记录。
复核路线
阅读论文或模型卡及评测附录，针对明确基线复现一个有限结论，再测试代表性用户任务并记录结论失效的场景。