mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation

arXiv 2508.14146 ↗First posted 19 Aug 2025cs.CLcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rapid growth of academic publications, peer review has become an essential yet time-consuming responsibility within the research community. Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly been adopted to assist in the generation of review comments; however, current LLM-based review tasks lack a unified evaluation benchmark to rigorously assess the models' ability to produce comprehensive, accurate, and human-aligned assessments, particularly in scenarios involving multimodal content such as figures and tables. To address this gap, we propose MMReview, a comprehensive benchmark that spans multiple disciplines and modalities. MMReview includes multimodal content and expert-written review comments for 240 papers across 17 research domains within four major academic disciplines: Artificial Intelligence, Natural Sciences, Engineering Sciences, and Social Sciences. We design a total of 13 tasks grouped into four core categories, aimed at evaluating the performance of LLMs and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) in step-wise review generation, outcome formulation, alignment with human preferences, and robustness to adversarial input manipulation. Extensive experiments conducted on 16 open-source models and 5 advanced closed-source models demonstrate the thoroughness of the benchmark. We envision MMReview as a critical step toward establishing a standardized foundation for the development of automated peer review systems.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2025.

Builds on

24 of 40 references.

References · 24

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,587
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
  6. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  7. 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
  8. 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 205
  9. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  10. 2023Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examinercited by 172
  11. 2024Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluatorscited by 149
  12. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
12 more
  1. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 122
  2. 2024MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 104
  3. 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
  4. 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A surveycited by 61
  5. 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
  6. 2024Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really arecited by 54
  7. 2024Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactionscited by 46
  8. 2021MReD: A Meta-Review Dataset for Structure-Controllable Text Generationcited by 42
  9. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  10. 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
  11. 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviewscited by 32
  12. 2024From Words to Worth: Newborn Article Impact Prediction with LLMcited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers
  2. 2026LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
  3. 2025From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer Review
  4. 2026PeerCheck: Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality
  5. 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
  6. 2025Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review
  7. 2026PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers
  8. 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process