How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Eac
Record details
Published: 4 August 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: unclassified
Retrieved: 5 August 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Hearsay: Vision-Language Medical Diagnoses Without an Image
arXiv cs.CY · 30 July 2026
Hearsay: Vision-Language Medical Diagnoses Without an Image
arXiv cs.AI · 29 July 2026
Socioeconomic Inference in LLM Medical Triage: Same Symptoms, Different ZIP Code
arXiv cs.CY · 28 July 2026
When Shippers Become Algorithms: Candidate Exposure, Information Design, and the Concentration of LLM-Mediated Freight Markets
arXiv cs.CY · 23 July 2026
When Shippers Become Algorithms: Candidate Exposure, Information Design, and the Concentration of LLM-Mediated Freight Markets
arXiv cs.AI · 22 July 2026
Revenue-Sharing as Infrastructure: A Distributed Business Model for Generative AI Platforms
arXiv · 20 March 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (4 August 2026), “How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?,” evidence record 16275, https://ethics.ai/record/16275 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.