analiza aiqbench
This research introduces a novel process-centric benchmark to evaluate AI-assisted peer review, shifting focus from final decision accuracy to the reliability of intermediate reasoning steps. By analyzing heterogeneous datasets across multiple models, the study reveals that while AI systems often generate locally consistent text, their final decisions are not always adequately supported by preceding evidence. This diagnostic tool is critical for ensuring transparency and auditability in scientific workflows where AI acts as an assistant rather than a replacement for human reviewers.
Beyond Final Decisions: A Process-Centric Benchmark for Transparent AI-Assisted Peer Review
arXiv:2609.05947v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Peer review is central to quality control in science. However, existing evaluations of AI-assisted peer review mainly focus on the overall quality of generated reviews or the accuracy of final decisions. They therefore provide limited evidence about whether model decisions are supported by sufficient and reliable review evidence. We introduce a process-centric diagnostic benchmark for AI-assisted peer review. It uses (x,$z_s$,$z_c$,$z_r$,y) to represent the paper content, summary, critique, suggestion, and decision. We convert heterogeneous review records from PeerRead, NLPeer ARR-22, and OpenReview-ICLR into process-aligned data. Our benchmark uses direct decision prediction from the paper content (Direct) as its baseline. It compares the decision value of Gold-process variables and Predicted-process variables, and conducts stage-level evaluation, chain-consistency evaluation, and interventional sensitivity analysis. Experiments across three datasets and six models show that Gold-process variables generally have higher decision value. For the main analysis model, the Gold--Predicted gap remains stable across datasets and random seeds. This gap is also reproduced in most model--dataset combinations. Although model-generated intermediate review texts show relatively high local consistency across adjacent stages, the final decisions are not consistently supported by the preceding review evidence. Our benchmark targets AI systems designed to assist rather than replace human reviewers. It provides a transparent and auditable diagnostic tool for evaluating the reliability of their review processes.
Abstract:Peer review is central to quality control in science. However, existing evaluations of AI-assisted peer review mainly focus on the overall quality of generated reviews or the accuracy of final decisions. They therefore provide limited evidence about whether model decisions are supported by sufficient and reliable review evidence. We introduce a process-centric diagnostic benchmark for AI-assisted peer review. It uses (x,$z_s$,$z_c$,$z_r$,y) to represent the paper content, summary, critique, suggestion, and decision. We convert heterogeneous review records from PeerRead, NLPeer ARR-22, and OpenReview-ICLR into process-aligned data. Our benchmark uses direct decision prediction from the paper content (Direct) as its baseline. It compares the decision value of Gold-process variables and Predicted-process variables, and conducts stage-level evaluation, chain-consistency evaluation, and interventional sensitivity analysis. Experiments across three datasets and six models show that Gold-process variables generally have higher decision value. For the main analysis model, the Gold--Predicted gap remains stable across datasets and random seeds. This gap is also reproduced in most model--dataset combinations. Although model-generated intermediate review texts show relatively high local consistency across adjacent stages, the final decisions are not consistently supported by the preceding review evidence. Our benchmark targets AI systems designed to assist rather than replace human reviewers. It provides a transparent and auditable diagnostic tool for evaluating the reliability of their review processes.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.05947 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.05947v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05947 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 308 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · 24 sept. 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · 21 mai 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · 7 iun. 2026