aiqbench analysis
This research investigates whether Large Language Models can effectively generate questions that prompt authors to improve their AI conference paper drafts, comparing automated outputs against human reviewers. While LLMs produce a higher volume of questions covering broader content areas, the study finds that only a small fraction actually lead to substantive edits, and performance degrades when models attempt to process full-length contexts. The findings offer practical insights for researchers on leveraging automated feedback tools while managing limitations related to long-context reasoning.
Generating Edit-Inducing Questions for AI Research Manuscripts
arXiv:2609.36617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study the ability of LLMs to generate edit-inducing questions whose answer will improve a paper draft. On a dataset of paired submission and camera-ready papers from ICLR and NeurIPS, we compare the helpfulness of questions from GPT models with or without full paper context to that of human reviewers. GPT produces more edit-inducing questions and its questions are associated with more extensive edits and cover a broader range of edited content compared to questions from reviewers. However, a much smaller percentage of the GPT questions are edit-inducing. Our analyses confirm that automated questions can be beneficial to authors and highlight an example task where proper attending to long context deteriorates reasoning model ability to produce helpful output.
Abstract:We study the ability of LLMs to generate edit-inducing questions whose answer will improve a paper draft. On a dataset of paired submission and camera-ready papers from ICLR and NeurIPS, we compare the helpfulness of questions from GPT models with or without full paper context to that of human reviewers. GPT produces more edit-inducing questions and its questions are associated with more extensive edits and cover a broader range of edited content compared to questions from reviewers. However, a much smaller percentage of the GPT questions are edit-inducing. Our analyses confirm that automated questions can be beneficial to authors and highlight an example task where proper attending to long context deteriorates reasoning model ability to produce helpful output.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.36617 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.36617v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36617 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 213 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026

Why AI Coding Agents Need a Deterministic Code Health Gate
CodeScene · Sep 15, 2026
Artmarket.com: H1 2026 Financial Report -- One-of-a - Kind AI Systems Intuitive Artmarket® and Blind Spot Will Drive the Next Phase of Growth for AI - First Artprice in 2026 - 2030
thailand-business-news.com · Sep 28, 2026

Artmarket.com: H1 2026 Financial Report -- One-of-a - Kind AI Systems Intuitive Artmarket and Blind Spot Will Drive the Next Phase of Growth for
australiannews.net · Sep 29, 2026