Model Releases
PremiseCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of Human and AI Peer Reviews
arXiv:2610.21046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Peer review is under strain from the growth of submissions, and review comments written by humans or AI can misstate what a paper says. We introduce R
arXiv:2610.21046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Peer review is under strain from the growth of submissions, and review comments written by humans or AI can misstate what a paper says. We introduce ReviewFact, a benchmark that labels such factual errors in review comments under one definition across NLP, machine learning, and the natural sciences, and that measures cost and latency alongside accuracy. A frontier LLM checks comments well but must read the whole paper for each check, while cheap decision models, which score whether a statement holds in a text, fall far short on whole comments that mix several implicit assertions. PremiseCheck is a framework that combines the two. An LLM rewrites each comment as explicit premises without reading the paper, and a decision model checks each premise against the paper. When each comment is checked on its own, PremiseCheck reaches accuracy comparable to GPT-5.5 across all three fields at about half its cost, and on NLP reviews at a quarter of its cost and less than half its latency.
Related
- How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?
- Beyond Verdicts: A Graph-Based Analysis of Human and LLM Reasoning in Scientific Fact-Checking
- Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community
- When Reviews Disagree: Fine-Grained Contradiction Analysis in Scientific Peer Reviews
- Teaching Language Models to Check Grounded Claim Factuality with Human Test-Taking Strategies
Source: arXiv cs.AI | 2026-10-16