Abraham Camelo-Guerrero

arXiv2026

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. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

How Much Structure Do LLMs Need? Evaluating LLMs for Bibliometric Cluster Description

Large language models (LLMs) can support scientific literature synthesis, but remain prone to hallucinated references, uneven coverage, and weakly grounded thematic organization. We evaluate whether bibliometric structure improves LLM-assisted synthesis by comparing six pipelines for generating cluster descriptions under different levels of evidence and structure. Using 100 published bibliometric analyses, we reconstruct Scopus corpora, extract human-written cluster descriptions, and assess outputs by human alignment, semantic coverage, clustering quality, graph quality, and reference grounding. Results show that LLMs produce descriptions semantically close to human-written ones, but are unreliable when asked to infer bibliometric structure from scratch. Performance improves when bibliometric algorithms define the clusters and the LLM interprets them. Overall, LLM-assisted bibliometric synthesis is most promising as a hybrid workflow in which algorithms provide auditable structure and LLMs generate readable descriptions.

cs.CL↗