mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System

arXiv 2603.03142 ↗First posted 3 Mar 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 37 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.

Builds on

37 of 53 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers31 Mar

Other references · 36

  1. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
  2. 2023Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolutioncited by 521
  3. 2020SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformerscited by 426
  4. 2025AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Codecited by 206
  5. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 195
  6. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
  7. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 135
  8. 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
  9. 2025AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Researchcited by 54
  10. 2020ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesiscited by 53
  11. 2021Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experimentcited by 49
  12. 2024Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Reviewcited by 49
24 more
  1. 2022Read, Revise, Repeat: A System Demonstration for Human-in-the-loop Iterative Text Revisioncited by 46
  2. 2022Grammatical Error Correction: A Survey of the State of the Artcited by 43
  3. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  4. 2025Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025cited by 40
  5. 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
  6. 2024Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistancecited by 33
  7. 2022MOPRD: A multidisciplinary open peer review datasetcited by 32
  8. 2023Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experimentcited by 31
  9. 2025TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Reviewcited by 31
  10. 2025Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Reviewcited by 18
  11. 2025Detecting LLM-Generated Peer Reviewscited by 18
  12. 2025ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RLcited by 17
  13. 2024From Words to Worth: Newborn Article Impact Prediction with LLMcited by 15
  14. 2024HLM-Cite: Hybrid Language Model Workflow for Text-based Scientific Citation Predictioncited by 15
  15. 2024Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experimentcited by 15
  16. 2025Breaking the Reviewer: Assessing the Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review Under Textual Adversarial Attackscited by 14
  17. 2025RepliBench: Evaluating the Autonomous Replication Capabilities of Language Model Agentscited by 12
  18. 2025The Automated LLM Speedrunning Benchmark: Reproducing NanoGPT Improvementscited by 12
  19. 2023Modeling Dynamic Heterogeneous Graph and Node Importance for Future Citation Predictioncited by 7
  20. 2025Position: The Current AI Conference Model is Unsustainable! Diagnosing the Crisis of Centralized AI Conferencecited by 7
  21. 2025Misleading Large Language Models used (or misused) in Scientific Peer-Reviewing via Hidden Prompt-Injection Attackscited by 6
  22. 2023Text revision in Scientific Writing Assistance: An Overviewcited by 5
  23. 2021COMPARE: A Taxonomy and Dataset of Comparison Discussions in Peer Reviewscited by 4
  24. 2025Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AIcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Can LLMs Write Reliable Rubrics? A Meta-Evaluation for Experiment Reproduction
  2. 2025ARISE: Agentic Rubric-Guided Iterative Survey Engine for Automated Scholarly Paper Generation
  3. 2026Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
  4. 2026PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress
  5. 2026Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction
  6. 2026Learning to Evaluate Before Improving: Automatic Rubric Induction for Automatic Research Agents
  7. 2025Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework
  8. 2026ReviewGuard: Aligning LLM-Assisted Peer Review with Long-Term Scientific Impact