AI reviewers are increasingly used to assess scientific manuscripts, yet it remains unclear whether their judgments reflect the improvements authors make through revision. We investigate this question
AI reviewers often fail to reflect manuscript improvements in scores, with user opinions frequently overriding observed revision gains.
AI reviewers are increasingly used to assess scientific manuscripts, yet it remains unclear whether their judgments reflect the improvements authors make through revision. We investigate this question using PaperTrajectory-2026, the 2026 release of PaperTrajectory, a dataset of 6,959 paper trajectories across five AI conferences, with automatic annotations of changes along 14 dimensions and separate judgments of overall quality. The annotations show that major improvements emphasize empirical evidence and framing, while later revisions tend toward incremental improvement. Using independent assessments of manuscript versions from eight AI reviewers, we examine whether annotated major…
Summary and abstract excerpt via Hugging Face Papers ↗ · arXiv.
Can AI Reviewers See Your Efforts to Improve Your Paper? A Large-Scale Study of Paper Revision Trajectories was first seen on Hugging Face · Daily papers on Nov 4, 2026. Since then it has appeared in 12 checks on 2 different days. Its best position was #20 of 30, reached on Nov 4, 05:28 UTC. It dropped off the list after Nov 5, 03:28 UTC.
Position on Hugging Face · Daily papers at every check (lower is better).
Best rank per day (UTC).
Platform metric as reported by Hugging Face.
Archived daily, weekly and monthly lists that include this entry.
Not at the moment. It was last on the list on Nov 5, 03:28 UTC, after 2 days of trending.
#20 on Hugging Face · Daily papers, on Nov 4, 05:28 UTC. Trendoday checks this list every 120 minutes.
It was first seen on Nov 4, 2026 and has been on the list on 2 days (12 checks) since.