CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 47Topic ModelingAcademic Writing and PublishingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing

Open access
Liu, Ryan, Shah, Nihar B.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.00622arXiv 2306.00622
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.00622

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The LLM sometimes produced false positives, labeling a correct part of a paper as incorrect.

    “We also find that the LLM occasionally outputs false positives, that is, falsely claims a correct part of the paper to be incorrect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    None of the other tested models identified the error in any of the papers when using Prompt-Direct.

    “None of these models were able to identify the error in any of the papers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The LLM used to evaluate the dataset has not been trained on this paper.
  • Findingown data

    Each of the 13 short computer science papers contained an error inserted by the authors.

    “We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The LLM successfully identified that logical fallacy.

    “The LLM successfully identifies this fallacy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The LLM used to evaluate the dataset has not been trained on this paper.
  • Findingown data

    Across 119 checklist question-paper pairs, the LLM achieved 86.6% accuracy.

    “We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The LLM used to evaluate the dataset has not been trained on this paper.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 49
  • May combine two claims. 30
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The bias/fairness paper contains a logical fallacy in its claimed implication that the rest of Reference 1's argument must be false.

    “The paper has a logical fallacy in the claimed implication that the remaining part of the argument of Reference 1 must be false.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The non-parametric regression paper incorrectly claims that mean squared convergence of the estimator to f directly implies that the probability the estimator equals f converges to 1.

    “The paper incorrectly claims that the mean squared convergence of the estimator fn to f directly implies lim n→∞ Probability( fn = f ) = 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The 10 pairs of abstracts were designed so that one abstract in each pair was clearly superior.

    “We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The detected errors included both mathematical mistakes and conceptual fallacies.

    “We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the algorithm-name test, one of the three replies selected the first abstract, missed the extra result in the second, and invented a distinction between them.

    “However, in one of the three responses (shown below), it accepts Abstract 1.It does not identify the additional result in Abstract 2, but instead hallucinates a difference (point 6 below) that leads it to accept Abstract 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the algorithm-name test, the abstract containing the extra result is the better one.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The LLM's mistakes in choosing between abstracts included not identifying a key difference or being influenced by extraneous factors.

    “We find that the LLM makes a number of mistakes, either not identifying a key difference or getting influenced by extraneous factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The LLM neither recognized this error nor retrieved it from the literature.

    “The LLM does not recognize this error nor does it recover this issue from the literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    For the 50% accuracy case, Prompt-Direct and Prompt-OneShot also detected the issue.

    “Curiously, unlike the 80% accuracy case, responses to Prompt-Direct and Prompt-OneShot also realize this issue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% accuracy paper's conclusion that there is no difference is a fallacy.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the positive result bias case, Abstract 1 had 342 participants and Abstract 2 had 212 participants.

    “Observe that Abstract 1 has 342 participants as opposed to only 212 participants in Abstract 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The LLM recognized that Abstract 1 correctly interprets the results and called out Abstract 2 for its inappropriate interpretation.

    “The LLM recognizes this and calls out abstract 2 for its inappropriate interpretation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The LLM failed to recognize that the additional restrictions in the sorting (harder) paper do not affect the need for at least order R*log(R) comparisons in the worst case.

    “The LLM fails to recognize that the inclusion of additional restrictions has no impact on the necessity of conducting at least order R*log(R) comparisons in the worst-case.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The LLM used to evaluate the dataset has not been trained on this paper.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    In the upper bounds case, the LLM correctly identified that a smaller upper bound is a stronger result.

    “The LLM this time correctly identifies that a smaller upper bound is a stronger result.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The LLM failed to notice that this simple restriction is irrelevant and excludes such an algorithm.

    “The LLM still does not recognize that this simple restriction will make no difference to requirement of at least order R*log(R) comparisons in the worst case, and will disallow an algorithm requiring only sqrt(R)*log(R) comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The LLM explained that it could not verify the claim because the full proof was missing.

    “However, it does clarify that it cannot verify the claim as the full proof is not provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The authors correctly responded to all 8 questions where GPT-4's incorrect answers were due to no textual evidence.

    “The authors, with full information of their own submission and figures, correctly responded to all 8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the lower bounds case, Abstract 1 proves the ratio is lower bounded by thrice the number of evaluators per submission, while Abstract 2 proves it is lower bounded by twice that number.

    “Notice that Abstract 1 proves that a certain ratio is bounded by thrice a certain quantity, whereas Abstract 2 proves that this very ratio is bounded by twice the same quantity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the 80% accuracy case, Prompt-Direct and Prompt-OneShot did not detect the fallacy, whereas Prompt-Parts did.

    “Interestingly, in this case, responses to Prompt-Direct and Prompt-OneShot fail to detect this fallacy.It is only when presented one sentence at a time in Prompt-Parts that the LLM flags this fallacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 80% accuracy paper's claim that no difference exists when the classifier cannot distinguish is erroneous.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The LLM did not recognize this issue and did not find it in the literature.

    “Again, the LLM does not recognize this issue nor does it recover it from the literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The second abstract explicitly highlights that its code works for all values of n.

    “However, the second abstract explicitly highlights that it works for all values of n.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The LLM did not catch this issue.

    “However, the LLM does not pick up on this issue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The LLM reasoned about paper contents in non-trivial ways, sometimes answering correctly when authors did not.

    “We also found that the LLM was able to reason about paper contents in non-trivial ways, including in cases where it responds to questions correctly whereas the authors did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the null result case, Abstract 1 correctly interprets the results while Abstract 2 does not.

    “Abstract 1 correctly interprets the results whereas abstract 2 does not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In the parameter ranges case, the two codes are identical except that the first abstract's code works for all n, k, d ≥ 2k-2 and the second abstract's code works for all n, k, d ≥ 2k-1.

    “The two codes are identical (the abstracts are paraphrased) except that the code in the first abstract works for all parameter values n, k and d ≥ 2k -2 and the and the code in the second abstract works for all parameter values n, k and d ≥ 2k -1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    In the positive result bias case, everything else was identical across the two abstracts.

    “Everything else is identical across the two abstracts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the positive result bias case, the p-values were 0.050001 for Abstract 1 and 0.049999 for Abstract 2.

    “The results are only marginally different: p=0.050001 versus p=0.049999.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    For Example 3, all three responses correctly noted that users were anonymous and no sensitive personal information was collected.

    “all three generated responses correctly reference that users remained anonymous and no sensitive personal information was collected.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The sorting (harder) paper did not provide a comprehensive proof of that assertion.

    “It is important to note that the paper did not provide a comprehensive proof of this assertion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The sorting (harder) paper assumes additional conditions on the array that do not change the orderwise complexity of sorting.

    “This paper considers the standard problem of sorting an array, but assumes some additional conditions on the array which will make no difference to the orderwise complexity of the sorting problem.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In Example 2, the model correctly distinguished the authors' work from other discussion, detected no discussion of negative impacts, and refuted the authors' claim.

    “Using the earlier parts of the conclusion section, the model was able to make the correct distinction of which part of the discussion corresponded to the authors' work and which part did not, allowing for it to detect that there was no discussion about the potential negative impacts about the authors' own work and refuting the authors' claim.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The LLM stated that the claim cannot be verified without further details.

    “To its credit, the LLM does say that it is impossible to verify this claim without additional details.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The LLM recognized this gap.

    “The LLM does recognize the gap between two arguments in the paper: the earlier part recognizes that the probability of the Passenger correctly guessing the Driver's chosen move is 2/3, but subsequently it is implicitly considered to be 1 leading to the claim that the Passenger will always win.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In pilot work to select a model, the authors wrote a fake short paper containing an error and asked multiple LLMs to check its claims; only GPT-4 found the error.

    “We created a fictitious short paper with an error, and asked several common LLMs to validate the correctness of the claims in it.In particular, we evaluated GPT-4 [Ope23b], Bard [Man23], Vicuna [The23], Koala [Gen+23], Alpaca [Tao+23], LLaMa [Tou+23], Dolly [Con+23], OpenAssistant [LAI23], and StableLM [Sta23].We found that only GPT-4 was able to detect the error.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Current open-source models performed much worse than proprietary GPT-4, making it hard to match that accuracy by fine-tuning open-source LLMs.

    “However, we have also found that the performance of current open source models is quite inferior to the proprietary GPT-4, thus posing a challenge to reaching a similar accuracy by fine tuning open source LLMs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The authors removed 2 of the 18 checklist questions from their main analysis.

    “Through this criteria, we remove 2 of 18 questions from our main analysis:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the buzzword test, the added buzzwords failed to benefit the second abstract in all three replies, and the model described them as distractions.

    “We find that in all three responses, the additional buzzwords did not help Abstract 2, and furthermore the LLM's responses call these out as distractions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the buzzword test, the abstract containing the extra analysis is better than the one with buzzwords.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the author-identity test, the model did not show bias from author names and instead chose the second abstract because of its extra result.

    “We find that the LLM refuses to be biased by the author identities, and bases its decisions on the additional result in Abstract 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the author-identity test, the abstract containing the extra result is the better one.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In those six papers, the model could not detect a deductive error and had to identify the flaw using outside knowledge.

    “Furthermore, in each of the 6 papers where it failed to detect the error, the paper did not contain the complete proof for the claim, thereby disallowing the LLM to detect a deductive error, and requiring it to figure out the flaw based on extraneous knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    LLMs show promise as reviewing assistants for specific tasks but not yet for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

    “Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The LLM mistakenly treated a lower bound on a fundamental ratio as a precise quantification of an algorithm, and therefore thought Abstract 2 contained stronger results.

    “However, the LLM mistakes a lower bound on a fundamental ratio to be a precise quantification of an algorithm, and hence thinks Abstract 2 contains stronger results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Each checklist entry was manually labeled by a computer science graduate student who had published at NeurIPS and served as a workflow chair.

    “Each entry is manually labeled by one computer science graduate student (first author of the present paper) with a past publication in the NeurIPS conference and experience as workflow chair in a top CS conference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    After initial labeling, the labeler re-labeled all questions using the author checklist and current labels to confirm correctness.

    “After labeling and calibrating to all the papers, the labeler then re-labeled all of the questions again using both the author checklist and current labels for reference, confirming to the best of our abilities that the labels are correct.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    When labels mismatched, the author-mentioned areas were double-checked, and if the labeler was unfamiliar, the author's answer was followed.

    “In the case of a mismatch, we double-checked any areas the author mentioned in their checklist answer, and searched for any mistakes in our understanding.If the labeler was not as familiar with the details, we deferred to the author-provided answer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To make the LLM objective, the system prompt and checklist questions were rephrased from a reviewer's perspective, referring to authors in third person.

    “To ensure the LLM takes an objective role rather than that of an author, the system prompt and checklist questions were rephrased to a reviewer point-of-view, referencing the authors in third-person.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    For each question-paper pair, a keyword search and a full scan were used to form a preliminary ground truth label.

    “For each {checklist question, paper} pair, we performed both a keyword search and a full scan of the paper contents to form a preliminary ground truth label.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The paper contains a gap: it first acknowledges a 2/3 chance for the Passenger to guess the Driver's move, but later treats that chance as 1, concluding the Passenger always wins.

    “The LLM does recognize the gap between two arguments in the paper: the earlier part recognizes that the probability of the Passenger correctly guessing the Driver's chosen move is 2/3, but subsequently it is implicitly considered to be 1 leading to the claim that the Passenger will always win.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A bigger lower bound is a stronger result.

    “A bigger lower bound is a stronger result”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The prompting strategy aligned with existing conference practices, as NeurIPS encourages justifications and section labels.

    “Our prompting strategy aligns well with existing conference practices: NeurIPS strongly encourages justifications to checklist answers, and suggests section labels as a method to do so.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Combining the outputs of these sign functions linearly does not yield a linear function of the original inputs.

    “and then recognizing that a linear combination of the outputs of such sign functions is not linear over the original inputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Over any finite field, there is no guarantee that any arbitrary set of 2420 code symbols, each an independent linear combination of the 2200 message symbols, will recover the message with absolute certainty.

    “Under any finite field, one cannot guarantee that with any arbitrary 2420 code symbols -where each code symbol is an independent linear combination of the 2200 message symbols -the message can be accurately recovered with complete certainty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The identity function satisfies all three conditions the paper places on f.

    “Suppose the function f is the identity function, which meets all the three requirements imposed on it by the paper.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is always a nonzero chance of failure.

    “There will always be a non-zero probability that it fails.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The fictitious paper's assertion that the constraints violate TUM is false.

    “identify from the literature that the claim of violating TUM is false”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [Jec+20]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Two common concerns about LLMs are their tendency to hallucinate false facts and their poor ability when reasoning about numbers and sequences of numbers.

    “Two common concerns about LLMs are their tendency to hallucinate false facts [Ji+22; Zha+23a] and their poor ability when reasoning about numbers and sequences of numbers [Zho+22;Raz+22].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [Ji+22; Zha+23a]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [Zho+22;Raz+22]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A possible reason the 50% case was detected by Prompt-Direct and Prompt-OneShot is that the fallacy is in the conclusion drawn from the 50% case, which appears at the end of the paper.

    “This may be due to the fact that the fallacy lies in the conclusion drawn from the 50% case, and in this paper, it is this 50% case which occurs at the end of the paper.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% accuracy paper's conclusion that there is no difference is a fallacy.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Requiring all R values to exceed 9 does not alter the worst-case lower bound of order R log R comparisons and rules out an algorithm that needs only order sqrt(R) log R comparisons.

    “this simple restriction will make no difference to requirement of at least order R*log(R) comparisons in the worst case, and will disallow an algorithm requiring only sqrt(R)*log(R) comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The paper is mistaken in asserting that a linear combination of linear classifiers remains linear.

    “The paper errs in the claim that a linear combinations of linear classifiers is linear.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The code in Abstract 1 also works for all n.

    “One can see from the result in the first abstract that the code in Abstract 1 also works for all n.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The array's sole restriction is that every one of the R values exceeds 9.

    “Observe that the only restriction on the array is that all the R values are greater than 9.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    An error bound of 2d over the square root of n cannot hold.

    “and therefore an error upper bound of 2d √ n is not possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the concrete model, one cannot tell the parameters apart from their shifted versions by any z, so accurate estimation is impossible.

    “The issue that had existed under the more general model still remains: it is impossible to distinguish parameters (w 1 , . . ., w d ) from (w 1 +z, . . ., w d +z) for any z, thereby making it impossible to make an accurate estimate of the parameters.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    The sign function is nonlinear.

    “that the sign function is a non-linear operation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A linear classifier applies a sign function after taking the linear combination.

    “that a linear classifier involves a sign function after the linear combination”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The LLM considered a positive result as making a greater scientific contribution and was biased towards the abstract with a positive (p<0.05) result.

    “However, the LLM considers a positive result as making a greater scientific contribution, and is biased towards the abstract that has a positive (p<0.05)result.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The pairs in Table 3 were constructed so that the choice between the two abstracts is evident.

    “The pairs are constructed so that the choice is evident.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    For the error-detection and paper-comparison experiments, the authors needed a clear ground truth and papers absent from the model's training data, so they wrote the papers themselves.

    “In the experiments aimed at identifying errors and discerning superior papers, we were obligated to create a clear ground truth and also ensure the papers did not exist within the LLM's training data, i.e., were not available on the internet.To fulfill these constraints, we resorted to handcrafting the papers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    At present, depending only on LLMs may be inappropriate.

    “However, at this point, relying solely on LLMs may not be suitable, given our finding that LLMs make mistakes even on simple reviewing tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The authors do not have enough expertise to evaluate whether the main claims in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.

    “thus we do not have enough expertise to evaluate this question.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Checklist item 1(a) was removed because creating its ground truth label requires significant domain knowledge in the paper's field.

    “Item 1(a) is removed as the ground truth label requires significant domain knowledge in the paper's field.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors selected the checklist items for their experiments based on the feasibility of creating a ground truth label in their manual labeling process.

    “We select the checklist items to include in our experiments based on the feasibility of creating a ground truth label in our manual labeling process (see Section 4.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Checklist item 1(d) was removed because part of the question refers to an action by the authors (reading the ethics guidelines) that cannot be verified from the information submitted to the conference.

    “Item 1(d) is removed as a portion of the question references an action the authors take (reading the guidelines) that is not verifiable by the information they submit to the conference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study's findings indicate that large language models could make scientific review more efficient and effective.

    “Our results suggest that LLMs have the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the scientific review process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
71 of 71

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The LLM used to evaluate the dataset has not been trained on this paper.

    “Of course, this assumes that the LLM is not itself trained on this very paper.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The clustering paper's claim that K-means in one dimension is initialization-invariant is false.

    “The paper falsely claims”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 80% accuracy paper's claim that no difference exists when the classifier cannot distinguish is erroneous.

    “The paper errs in claiming that there is no difference if the machine learning method cannot distinguish the two.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 50% accuracy paper's conclusion that there is no difference is a fallacy.

    “This may be due to the fact that the fallacy lies in the conclusion drawn from the 50% case”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The correct choice in each pair of abstracts is evident.

    “This is because the correct choice is quite evident, and thus an error is a cause for concern.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the algorithm-name test, the abstract containing the extra result is the better one.

    “Ideally, one would not be influenced by the name of the algorithm and choose the abstract with the additional result.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the bombastic-language test, the abstract containing the extra result is better than the one with inflated wording.

    “Both abstracts are nearly identical, but Abstract 2 also has experiments on Bitcoin, whereas Abstract 1 has additional bombastic text touting the importance of the problem and solution.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the buzzword test, the abstract containing the extra analysis is better than the one with buzzwords.

    “Observe that Abstract 1 has an additional analysis, whereas Abstract 2 touts buzzwords at the beginning and end of the abstract.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the author-identity test, the abstract containing the extra result is the better one.

    “The second abstract, however, contains an additional result.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs such as GPT-4 struggled to identify flaws in 13 papers when asked to 'review the paper' holistically, but performed better when specifically prompted to detect errors.

    “Prior work has shown that LLMs, such as GPT-4, struggled to identify flaws in 13 papers when asked to 'review the paper' holistically, but performed better when specifically prompted to detect errors (Liu and Shah, 2023).”

    From FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Liu and Shah, 2023

    The Abstract reports that specific error-detection prompts outperformed requests to write a review, but identifies that comparison as a pilot finding. The separate 13-paper experiment used GPT-4 to check deliberately flawed short computer science papers; Section 3.2 says it detected errors in 7 of 13. The source does not establish that GPT-4 struggled on those 13 papers specifically when asked to review them holistically. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some related works opt for smaller-scale datasets, manually annotating all papers to better ensure every error meets predefined criteria.

    “In contrast, some related works opt for smaller-scale datasets, manually annotating all papers to better ensure that every error meets predefined criteria (Liu and Shah, 2023; Son et al., 2025).”

    From FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Liu and Shah, 2023

    The Introduction and Discussion and limitations describe a small set of handcrafted papers with inserted, known flaws, created to provide clear ground truth. The Questions section also describes manually labeling every checklist-question–paper pair. But those labels concern checklist answers, not whether every error in the papers meets predefined criteria; the source does not describe that procedure. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent studies have found that ChatGPT substantially outperforms other LLMs, including Bard, in the reviewing of scientific papers or proposals.

    “However, recent studies have found that ChatGPT substantially outperforms other LLMs, including Bard, in the reviewing of scientific papers or proposals (Liang et al., 2023c;Liu & Shah, 2023).”

    From Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews (2024) · cites this paper as Liu & Shah, 2023

    The Introduction and §3.2 report that GPT-4 identified errors in short papers while Bard and the other tested models did not. Section 5.1 says GPT-4 was used through ChatGPT for an abstract-comparison task. The comparative result supports a narrower claim about GPT-4's error detection, not ChatGPT's general superiority in reviewing scientific papers or proposals. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance.

    “many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses.”

    From RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation (2026) · cites this paper as Liu and Shah, 2023

    Section 3.2 (page unavailable) reports that some models produced unwarranted critiques or nonsensical comments, supporting the narrower point that AI-generated review feedback can be poor. Section 6 (page unavailable) also cautions that LLMs make mistakes on reviewing tasks. Neither passage establishes that many reviews are superficial or that they leave authors without concrete, implementable guidance. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Automated checks for whether the checklist answers correspond to the indicated paper sections could help authors avoid accidental errors, speed up checklist completion, and facilitate reviewing.

    “Automated checks for whether the checklist answers correspond to the indicated paper sections could help authors avoid accidental errors, speed up checklist completion and facilitate reviewing (Liu and Shah, 2023).”

    From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Liu and Shah, 2023

    Section 4.3 describes using GPT-4 to verify author checklists against specified paper sections, and Section 4.2 reports that it flagged many author answers that differed from the hand-labeled ground truth. That supports the possibility of catching checklist errors and aiding review, but the passages do not say that these checks speed up authors’ checklist completion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Previous writing-style example is mislabeled

    Minor

    The introduction to the 50%-accuracy example calls the preceding section a 50%-accuracy example, but that section is explicitly the 80%-accuracy example.

  • Checklist year changes to 2023

    Minor

    The appendix calls the analyzed checklist a NeurIPS 2023 checklist, whereas the methods identify it as the NeurIPS 2022 checklist.

  • Prompt-injection pair is both ambiguous and scored as evident

    Minor

    The authors acknowledge that neither abstract in the prompt-injection pair is an obvious choice, but the table caption says the choice is evident for the pairs it scores.

  • Second coffee-study p-value changes in the comparison

    Minor

    The comparison reports p=0.049999 for Abstract 2, while Abstract 2 itself reports p=0.04999.

  • First coffee-study p-value changes in the comparison

    Minor

    The comparison reports p=0.050001 for Abstract 1, while Abstract 1 itself reports p=0.05001.

  • Abstract-pair count changes from 13 to 10

    Minor

    The methods section says the authors created 13 pairs, but the results section says there were 10 cases and describes 10 pairs.

6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [12]12. L. Charlin and R. Zemel. "The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system". In: ICML Workshop on Peer Reviewing and Publishing Models. 2013.
  2. [20]20. H. Ge, M. Welling, and Z. Ghahramani. A Bayesian model for calibrating conference review scores. Manuscript. 2013.
  3. [47]47. A. McCook. "Is peer review broken? Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What's wrong with peer review?" In: The scientist (2006).
  4. [72]72. The AJE Team. Peer Review: How We Found 15 Million Hours of Lost Time. 2013. url: https://www.aje.com/arc/peer-review-process-15-million-hours-lost-time/.
  5. [78]78. T. N. Vijaykumar. Potential Organized Fraud in ACM/IEEE Computer Architecture Confer- ences. 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liu, R., & Shah, N. B.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.00622
arXiv
2306.00622
OpenAlex
W4379258778
Semantic Scholar
62729cff7dda7614f648a84e8967076d8878a5ff
Cited by
23
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1942124, CAREER)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
large language models, GPT-4, peer review automation, prompt engineering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-02.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review