arXiv:2609.14738v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it leads to a measurable improvement in the paper. We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer, and evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields. To mirror how human authors build on earlier drafts, the AI scientist has access to its previous versions during revision. To avoid bias from prior judgments, however, each review is generated independently, with the reviewer having no memory of earlier feedback or scores. We compare three revision settings: one initialized with the original venue reviews, one initialized with AI-generated reviews, and autonomous self-revision using the same fixed prompt in every round. Because the reviewer both guides and evaluates the revision, we also assess the human-initialized revisions using Stanford Reviewer as an independent evaluator. Reviewer-guided revision consistently improves more than fixed-prompt self-revision, and Stanford Reviewer also assigns higher scores to later revisions. AppliedScientist resolves 128 of 150 execution-related weaknesses (85.3%), but only 2 of 18 idea-related weaknesses (11.1%), suggesting that iterative revision is effective at improving experiments and implementation, but rarely changes concerns about novelty or significance.
Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it leads to a measurable improvement in the paper. We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer, and evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields. To mirror how human authors build on earlier drafts, the AI scientist has access to its previous versions during revision. To avoid bias from prior judgments, however, each review is generated independently, with the reviewer having no memory of earlier feedback or scores. We compare three revision settings: one initialized with the original venue reviews, one initialized with AI-generated reviews, and autonomous self-revision using the same fixed prompt in every round. Because the reviewer both guides and evaluates the revision, we also assess the human-initialized revisions using Stanford Reviewer as an independent evaluator. Reviewer-guided revision consistently improves more than fixed-prompt self-revision, and Stanford Reviewer also assigns higher scores to later revisions. AppliedScientist resolves 128 of 150 execution-related weaknesses (85.3%), but only 2 of 18 idea-related weaknesses (11.1%), suggesting that iterative revision is effective at improving experiments and implementation, but rarely changes concerns about novelty or significance.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: