Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07905 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917501904879616 |
|---|---|
| author | Deng, Hexuan Ke, Xiaopeng Li, Yichen Hu, Ruina Huang, Dehao Wong, Derek F. Wang, Yue Liu, Xuebo Zhang, Min |
| author_facet | Deng, Hexuan Ke, Xiaopeng Li, Yichen Hu, Ruina Huang, Dehao Wong, Derek F. Wang, Yue Liu, Xuebo Zhang, Min |
| contents | Despite the rapid development of AI reviewers, evaluating such systems remains challenging: metrics favor overlap with human reviews over correctness. However, since human reviews often cover only a subset of salient issues and sometimes contain mistakes, they are unreliable as gold references. To address this, we build category-specific benchmark subsets and skip evaluation when the corresponding human reviews are missing to strengthen Completeness. We also leverage reviewer--author--meta-review discussions as expert annotations and filter unreliable reviews accordingly to strengthen Correctness. Finally, we introduce CoCoReviewBench, which curates 3,900 papers from ICLR and NeurIPS to enable reliable and fine-grained evaluation of AI reviewers. Analysis shows that AI reviewers remain limited in correctness and are prone to hallucinations, and highlights reasoning models as more effective reviewers, motivating further directions for improving AI reviewers. Benchmarks and models are available at https://github.com/hexuandeng/CoCoReviewBench. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_07905 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI Reviewers Deng, Hexuan Ke, Xiaopeng Li, Yichen Hu, Ruina Huang, Dehao Wong, Derek F. Wang, Yue Liu, Xuebo Zhang, Min Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Despite the rapid development of AI reviewers, evaluating such systems remains challenging: metrics favor overlap with human reviews over correctness. However, since human reviews often cover only a subset of salient issues and sometimes contain mistakes, they are unreliable as gold references. To address this, we build category-specific benchmark subsets and skip evaluation when the corresponding human reviews are missing to strengthen Completeness. We also leverage reviewer--author--meta-review discussions as expert annotations and filter unreliable reviews accordingly to strengthen Correctness. Finally, we introduce CoCoReviewBench, which curates 3,900 papers from ICLR and NeurIPS to enable reliable and fine-grained evaluation of AI reviewers. Analysis shows that AI reviewers remain limited in correctness and are prone to hallucinations, and highlights reasoning models as more effective reviewers, motivating further directions for improving AI reviewers. Benchmarks and models are available at https://github.com/hexuandeng/CoCoReviewBench. |
| title | CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI Reviewers |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07905 |