Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866911561050750976 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhang, Tianmai M. Abernethy, Neil F. |
| author_facet | Zhang, Tianmai M. Abernethy, Neil F. |
| contents | Recent advancements in large language models have sparked interest in utilizing them to aid the peer review process of scientific publication amid the peer review crisis. However, having AI models generate full reviews in the same way as human reviewers risks exacerbating the irresponsible use of LLM-generated reviews and instigating intentional manipulation. As an alternative, we propose adopting LLMs as manuscript quality checkers. We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges to tackle the difficulty of recruiting domain experts for manual evaluation. Utilizing papers withdrawn from arXiv, we validated our proposed methods with several leading reasoning LLMs available in May-June 2025 and assessed their performance and API costs for identifying critical errors and unsoundness problems in scientific papers. o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost. This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications. Our dataset, code, and model outputs are publicly available. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_23824 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation Zhang, Tianmai M. Abernethy, Neil F. Computation and Language Recent advancements in large language models have sparked interest in utilizing them to aid the peer review process of scientific publication amid the peer review crisis. However, having AI models generate full reviews in the same way as human reviewers risks exacerbating the irresponsible use of LLM-generated reviews and instigating intentional manipulation. As an alternative, we propose adopting LLMs as manuscript quality checkers. We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges to tackle the difficulty of recruiting domain experts for manual evaluation. Utilizing papers withdrawn from arXiv, we validated our proposed methods with several leading reasoning LLMs available in May-June 2025 and assessed their performance and API costs for identifying critical errors and unsoundness problems in scientific papers. o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost. This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications. Our dataset, code, and model outputs are publicly available. |
| title | Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23824 |