DeepReviewer 2.0: A Traceable Agentic System for Auditable Scientific Peer Review
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated peer review is often framed as generating fluent critique, yet reviewers and area chairs need judgments they can audit: where a concern applies, what evidence supports it, and what concrete follow-up is required. DeepReviewer~2.0 is a process-controlled agentic review system built around an output contract: it produces a traceable review package with anchored annotations, localized evidence, and executable follow-up actions, and it exports only after meeting minimum traceability and coverage budgets. Concretely, it first builds a manuscript-only claim--evidence--risk ledger and verification agenda, then performs agenda-driven retrieval and writes anchored critiques under an export gate. On 134 ICLR~2025 submissions under three fixed protocols, an un-finetuned 196B model running DeepReviewer~2.0 outperforms Gemini-3.1-Pro-preview, improving strict major-issue coverage (37.26% vs. 23.57%) and winning 71.63% of micro-averaged blind comparisons against a human review committee, while ranking first among automatic systems in our pool. We position DeepReviewer~2.0 as an assistive tool rather than a decision proxy, and note remaining gaps such as ethics-sensitive checks.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.
Builds on
22 of 28 references.
References · 22
- 2019LayoutLM: Pre-training of Text and Layout for Document Image Understandingcited by 553
- 2025ShinkaEvolve: Towards Open-Ended And Sample-Efficient Program Evolutioncited by 174
- 2022DocLayNet: A Large Human-Annotated Dataset for Document-Layout Analysiscited by 148
- 2024CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Reviewcited by 148
- 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Processcited by 100
- 2024OpenScholar: Synthesizing Scientific Literature with Retrieval-augmented LMscited by 72
- 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
- 2025DeepScientist: Advancing Frontier-Pushing Scientific Findings Progressivelycited by 63
- 2024Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Reviewcited by 53
- 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviewscited by 32
- 2024PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluatorcited by 28
- 2025ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviewscited by 25
10 more
- 2025A review on the novelty measurements of academic paperscited by 12
- 2025Unveiling the Merits and Defects of LLMs in Automatic Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 12
- 2025Jr. AI Scientist and Its Risk Report: Autonomous Scientific Exploration from a Baseline Papercited by 12
- 2025UPME: An Unsupervised Peer Review Framework for Multimodal Large Language Model Evaluationcited by 7
- 2025Pre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Modelscited by 6
- 2022ReAct: A Review Comment Dataset for Actionability (and more)cited by 5
- 2024SPHERE: Scaling Personalized Feedback in Programming Classrooms with Structured Review of LLM Outputscited by 4
- 2024ILCiteR: Evidence-grounded Interpretable Local Citation Recommendationcited by 3
- 2013A Semi-automated Peer-review Systemcited by 1
- 2024Deep Transfer Learning Based Peer Review Aggregation and Meta-review Generation for Scientific Articlescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agentcited by 4
- 2026RubricReviewer: From Direct Critique to Objective and Comprehensive Rubric-Driven Peer Reviewcited by 2
- 2026EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillationcited by 1
- 2026Uncertainty-Aware Generation and Decision-Making Under Ambiguitycited by 1
- 2026ARAC: Benchmarking Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness on End-to-End Researchscited by 1
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
- 2026AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewingcited by 0
- 2026AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing13 Sep 2026
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing7 Sep 2026
- 2026ARAC: Benchmarking Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness on End-to-End Researchs13 Aug 2026
- 2026Uncertainty-Aware Generation and Decision-Making Under Ambiguity29 Jun 2026
- 2026From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent11 Jun 2026
- 2026RubricReviewer: From Direct Critique to Objective and Comprehensive Rubric-Driven Peer Review4 Jun 2026
- 2026EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation4 Jun 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review
- 2026Review the Code, Not the Story: A Vision and Protocol for Code-First Peer Review ↗
- 2024AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents
- 2026Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems
- 2025DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence
- 2026Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
- 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
- 2026When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?