paper-with-me

Papers

Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025

2025-04-13 · Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl Vondrick, James Zou

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 multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve review clarity and actionability by providing automated feedback on vague comments, content misunderstandings, and unprofessional remarks to reviewers. Implemented at ICLR 2025 as a large randomized control study, our system provided optional feedback to more than 20,000 randomly selected reviews. To ensure high-quality feedback for reviewers at this scale, we also developed a suite of automated reliability tests powered by LLMs that acted as guardrails to ensure feedback quality, with feedback only being sent to reviewers if it passed all the tests. The results show that 27% of reviewers who received feedback updated their reviews, and over 12,000 feedback suggestions from the agent were incorporated by those reviewers. This suggests that many reviewers found the AI-generated feedback sufficiently helpful to merit updating their reviews. Incorporating AI feedback led to significantly longer reviews (an average increase of 80 words among those who updated after receiving feedback) and more informative reviews, as evaluated by blinded researchers. Moreover, reviewers who were selected to receive AI feedback were also more engaged during paper rebuttals, as seen in longer author-reviewer discussions. This work demonstrates that carefully designed LLM-generated review feedback can enhance peer review quality by making reviews more specific and actionable while increasing engagement between reviewers and authors. The Review Feedback Agent is publicly available at https://github.com/zou-group/review_feedback_agent.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2504.09737

Code (1)

zou-group/review_feedback_agent 공식 구현

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Level Up Peer Review in Education: Investigating genAI-driven Gamification system and its influence on Peer Feedback Effectiveness

2025-04-03 · Rafal Wlodarski, Leonardo da Silva Sousa, Allison Connell Pensky

In software engineering (SE), the ability to review code and critique designs is essential for professional practice. However, these skills are rarely emphasized in formal education, and peer feedback quality and engagem…

Specificity

What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?

2026-02-14 · Shiping Chen, Shu Zhong, Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox arxiv

AI is reshaping academic research, yet its role in peer review remains polarising and contentious. Advocates see its potential to reduce reviewer burden and improve quality, while critics warn of risks to fairness, accou…

Calibrated Generative AI as Meta-Reviewer: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Discourse Analysis of Reviews of Peer Reviews

2025-09-18 · Gabriela C. Zapata, Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis, Duane Searsmith arxiv

This study investigates the use of generative AI to support formative assessment through machine generated reviews of peer reviews in graduate online courses in a public university in the United States. Drawing on System…

Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards

2025-05-08 · Jaeho Kim, Yunseok Lee, Seulki Lee

The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over …

Position

More Reviews May Not Help: Evidence from Incentivized First Reviews on Airbnb

2021-12-17 · Andrey Fradkin, David Holtz

Online reviews are typically written by volunteers and, as a consequence, information about seller quality may be under-provided in digital marketplaces. We study the extent of this under-provision in a large-scale rando…

Selection bias