Performance Analysis and Optimization for Laser-Phase-Noise based Quantum Random Number Generation

Bingjie Xu; Guowei Zhang; Heng Wang; Jie Yang; Jinlu Liu; Wei Chen; Wei Huang; Yang Li; Yan Pan; Yu Gao

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Performance Analysis and Optimization for Laser-Phase-Noise based Quantum Random Number Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A physical model for laser-phase-noise quantum RNGs predicts the entropy spectrum and raw-data statistics so generation rate can be optimized.

desk verdict We only have the abstract for the QRNG model paper; the supplied full text is an unrelated PeerPrism NLP paper, so the claimed physical model cannot be audited. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.14511 v2 pith:U3NRAABP submitted 2026-04-16 quant-ph

Jinlu Liu , Jie Yang , Yu Gao , Guowei Zhang , Yan Pan , Heng Wang , Yuyang Ding , Yang Li

show 3 more authors

Wei Huang Bingjie Xu Wei Chen

This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumrandomnumbergenerationlaserphasenoiseentropysourcephotonicintegrationpowerspectrumextractablerandomnessperformanceoptimization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum random number generators that harvest laser phase noise can run at high rates and suit photonic integration, yet a complete theory for maximizing their output rate has been missing. This paper introduces a physical model that predicts the power spectrum of the entropy source and the probability distribution of the raw data. From those predictions one can estimate entropy-source bandwidth and extractable randomness, and therefore evaluate and optimize system performance in quantitative terms. The model agrees with both simulation and experiment under various typical setups. The authors further claim the model supports proactive choice of experimental parameters to reach optimal performance in photonic-integrated implementations.

What carries the argument

The end-to-end physical model of the laser phase-noise entropy source and detection chain—it maps experimental parameters onto predicted power spectrum and raw-data statistics, from which bandwidth and extractable randomness follow.

What would settle it

Build a laser-phase-noise QRNG with parameters outside the validated range, measure its power spectrum and raw-data histogram, and test whether they match the model’s predictions for bandwidth and extractable randomness at the claimed level of agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A comprehensive physical model of laser-phase-noise quantum random number generation accurately predicts the entropy-source power spectrum and the raw-data probability distribution; those quantities determine entropy-source bandwidth and extractable randomness, so system performance can be quantitatively evaluated and optimized for maximum generation rate.

Load-bearing premise

The model’s assumptions about laser phase-noise statistics, the detection chain, and other noise sources stay complete and predictive outside the specific setups used for validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Experimental parameters for laser, interferometer, and detection can be chosen to maximize generation rate before hardware is built.
Photonic-integrated QRNG layouts can be sized from model predictions rather than trial-and-error.
Extractable randomness for this class of devices becomes a quantitative design target instead of a heuristic estimate.
Agreement under typical setups supports using the model as a practical design tool for integrated systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the model continues to hold outside the validated regimes, it could become a standard design tool for chip-scale phase-noise QRNG products.
The same spectrum-plus-distribution approach may transfer to other continuous-variable entropy sources where extractable entropy is jointly set by bandwidth and raw statistics.
Systematic mismatch between model and experiment outside the validated range would flag missing noise terms that limit claimed rates.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing you need to know: the manuscript body we were given is not arXiv:2604.14511. It is PeerPrism (LLM peer-review detection, different arXiv number). Everything below is therefore abstract-only for the laser-phase-noise QRNG work, and confidence has to stay low.

From the abstract alone, the claim is clear and useful within its niche. Laser-phase-noise QRNGs are already common for high rate and photonic integration. The authors say prior theory was incomplete for maximizing generation rate, and they supply a physical model that jointly predicts the entropy-source power spectrum and the raw-data probability distribution. From those you get bandwidth and extractable randomness, so you can evaluate and optimize the system and even choose experimental parameters proactively for integrated designs. They report simulation and experiment agreement under various typical setups. That is a legitimate engineering-modeling contribution if the equations and validation hold.

What we cannot check is everything that matters for soundness: the actual phase-noise statistics, detection-chain assumptions, neglected terms, free parameters (linewidth, power, delay, detector bandwidth, etc.), error bars, comparison figures, and whether “significant agreement” is predictive or partly fit-then-predict on the same devices. The weakest assumption is generalization outside the (unseen) validation regimes to the proactive photonic-integration design space they advertise. None of that can be stress-tested here.

So: this is for people building or optimizing phase-noise QRNGs who need a rate-oriented design model. On the abstract it looks like serious applied work that a quantum-optics or photonic-security editor would send to referees. I would not bring it to reading group or cite it until the correct PDF is in hand. Once the real manuscript appears, re-score soundness and circularity from the equations and data. Until then, treat the optimization claim as unverified.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The abstract claims a comprehensive physical model for laser-phase-noise quantum random number generation (QRNG) that predicts the entropy-source power spectrum and raw-data probability distribution, from which bandwidth and extractable randomness can be estimated for quantitative optimization; it further asserts validation by simulation and experiment with significant agreement under various typical setups, enabling proactive design for photonic-integrated QRNGs. The supplied full manuscript body, however, is an unrelated NLP paper (PeerPrism) on disentangling idea vs. text provenance in LLM-assisted peer review, with a 20,690-review benchmark, detector evaluations (DetectGPT, Fast-DetectGPT, RADAR, etc.), and stylometric/semantic analyses. No QRNG model, phase-noise statistics, detection-chain equations, power spectra, entropy estimates, simulation/experiment comparisons, or photonic-integration design results appear in the body.

Significance. If the abstract’s claims held for a genuine laser-phase-noise QRNG model with validated predictive power and proactive optimization, the work would be of clear practical value for high-rate, integrable QRNG design. As submitted, the body does not advance or even address that claim; the PeerPrism content is a separate contribution on AI-text detection in peer review and cannot be assessed as support for the QRNG abstract. No machine-checked derivations, QRNG code, parameter-free predictions, or falsifiable QRNG results are present under the claimed title.

major comments (3)

Title/abstract vs. body mismatch: the manuscript body is PeerPrism (LLM peer-review detection, dataset of 20,690 reviews, detector benchmarks in §§5.1–5.4, Tables 1–4, Figure 1), not a physical model of laser phase noise, power spectrum, raw-data distributions, or extractable randomness. No QRNG equations, noise model, bandwidth estimation, or optimization procedure exist to evaluate the central claim.
Validation claim cannot be checked: the abstract’s ‘significant agreement’ under ‘various typical setups’ and the proactive-design claim for photonic-integrated QRNGs have no supporting figures, parameter ranges, error bars, or comparison of predicted vs. measured spectra/distributions in the supplied text. The load-bearing scientific content of arXiv:2604.14511 is absent.
Generalization/weakest-assumption issue: even if a QRNG model existed, the abstract’s leap from agreement on ‘typical setups’ to proactive optimal design for integrated devices cannot be stress-tested; free parameters (linewidth, power, delay, detector bandwidth, etc.) and neglected noise terms are unspecified because the body is the wrong paper.

minor comments (2)

CCS/keywords, ACM reference, and all sections (Introduction through Concluding Remarks) belong to PeerPrism (SIGIR ’26 framing), not quant-ph QRNG; metadata and content are inconsistent with the stated paper_id and title.
If the intended submission was PeerPrism, it should be evaluated under its own title and venue criteria; as packaged under the QRNG abstract it is not reviewable as claimed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be exhibited: supplied full text is a different paper (PeerPrism), and the QRNG abstract alone shows no reduction of predictions to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The load-bearing claim of arXiv:2604.14511 is a comprehensive physical model that predicts the entropy-source power spectrum and raw-data distribution, from which bandwidth and extractable randomness follow, with validation by simulation and experiment. The CACHEABLE full manuscript, however, is PeerPrism (LLM peer-review detection, arXiv:2604.14513), not the laser-phase-noise QRNG paper. No equations, noise model, fitted parameters, or derivation chain for the QRNG work are present, so no step can be quoted that reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction (self-definitional, fitted-then-predicted, self-citation uniqueness, ansatz smuggling, or renaming). PeerPrism itself is a controlled dataset/benchmark paper with no first-principles derivation of the kind the circularity patterns target; its regimes are constructed by design and evaluated against detectors, not presented as forced predictions from fitted physics. Per hard rules, circularity is only flagged when a specific reduction can be quoted; none can. Score 0 with empty steps is the honest outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review of a device-physics paper. Free parameters and axioms of the laser/detection model are not stated in the abstract. Ledger records only what can be inferred: standard quantum-optics and laser-noise assumptions plus the claim that the model is complete enough for proactive optimization. No invented particles or forces; the ‘entity’ is the model itself as a predictive tool.

free parameters (1)

Unspecified laser and detection parameters (linewidth, power, delay, detector bandwidth, etc.)
Any phase-noise QRNG model depends on device parameters that are typically measured or fitted; the abstract does not list which are free vs fixed, so they remain unaccounted free parameters for the optimization claim.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Laser phase noise (and the measurement chain) can be captured by a physical model that jointly determines power spectrum and raw-data probability distribution sufficiently for entropy estimation.
Load-bearing modeling premise of the abstract; completeness of noise sources is not proven in the available text.
domain assumption Extractable randomness and entropy-source bandwidth estimated from the predicted spectrum/distribution correctly bound usable QRNG rate after post-processing.
Standard QRNG security/rate pipeline assumption; details of min-entropy estimator and adversary model not given in the abstract.
ad hoc to paper Agreement under ‘various typical setups’ implies the model can proactively design optimal parameters for photonic-integrated implementations.
Extrapolation from validated setups to general proactive design is asserted but not evidenced in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance Analysis and Optimization for Laser-Phase-Noise based Quantum Random Number Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3NRAABP

@misc{pith2026260414511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance Analysis and Optimization for Laser-Phase-Noise based Quantum Random Number Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3NRAABP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.14511}
}

read the original abstract

The quantum random number generation based on laser phase noise, which is featured with high random number generation rate and ease for photonic integration, has been extensively investigated and demonstrated. Despite these advancements, a theoretical model to achieve optimal performance in terms of maximizing the random number generation rate is still incomplete. In this work, a comprehensive physical model for this scheme is introduced to accurately predict the power spectrum of entropy source and probability distribution of raw data, based on which the entropy source bandwidth and extractable randomness can be accordingly estimated and thus the system performance can be quantitatively evaluated and optimized. The model is sufficiently validated through both simulation and experiment with significant agreement under various typical setups. Furthermore, our proposal enables the proactive design of experimental parameters to achieve optimal system performance, which is crucial for the design and practical implementation of photonics integrated quantum random number generations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14511 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Security Evaluation of Laser-Phase-Noise Quantum Random Number Generators with Intrinsic Correlations
quant-ph 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

Temporal overlap of laser phase increments creates predictable correlations that inflate the standard min-entropy of compact laser-phase-noise random number generators by tens of percent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Sangzin Ahn. 2024. The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology: official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology28, 5 (2024), 393–401

2024
[2]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Sara Salamat, Muhan Li, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. Building Trustworthy Peer Review Quality Assessment Systems. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 6863–6864. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761436

doi:10.1145/3746252.3761436 2025
[3]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Soroush Sadeghian, Seyed Mohammad Hos- seini, Alireza Daqiq, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2026. Can LLMs Uphold Research Integrity? Evaluating the Role of LLMs in Peer Review Quality. InProceedings of the Nineteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’26). 1341–1342. doi:10....

doi:10.1145/3773966.3784970 2026
[4]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Sara Salamat, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2024. Reviewerly: Modeling the Reviewer Assignment Task as an Information Retrieval Problem. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 5554–5555. doi:10.1145/ 3627673.3679081

arXiv 2024
[5]

Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature. InInternational Conference on Learning Rep- resentations

2024
[6]

Sajad Ebrahimi, Soroush Sadeghian, Ali Ghorbanpour, Negar Arabzadeh, Sara Salamat, Muhan Li, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. RottenReviews: Benchmarking Review Quality with Human and LLM-Based Judgments. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 5642–5649. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761506

doi:10.1145/3746252.3761506 2025
[7]

Sajad Ebrahimi, Sara Salamat, Negar Arabzadeh, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. exHarmony: Authorship and Citations for Benchmarking the Reviewer Assignment Problem. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88714-7_1

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88714-7_1 2025
[8]

Yanai Elazar and Maria Antoniak. 2026. LLM-Generated or Human-Written? Com- paring Review and Non-Review Papers on arXiv.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.17036 (2026)

arXiv 2026

Show all 42 references

[9]

Sebastian Gehrmann, Hendrik Strobelt, and Alexander Rush. 2019. GLTR: Statis- tical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text. InProceedings of ACL

2019
[10]

Tirthankar Ghosal, Rajeev Verma, Asif Ekbal, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2019. DeepSentiPeer: Harnessing sentiment in review texts to recommend peer re- view decisions. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1120–1130

2019
[11]

Abhimanyu Hans, Avi Schwarzschild, Valeriia Cherepanova, Hamid Kazemi, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2024. Spotting LLMs with Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Ma...

2024
[12]

Tim Hillard and Rod Baber. 2021. Peer review: the cornerstone of scientific publishing integrity. 107–108 pages

2021
[13]

Eftekhar Hossain, Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Naman Bansal, R Alexander Knipper, Souvika Sarkar, John Salvador, Yash Mahajan, Sri Ram Pavan Kumar Guttikonda, Mousumi Akter, Md Mahadi Hassan, et al . 2025. Llms as meta-reviewers’ as- sistants: A case study. InProceedings of the 2025 C...

2025
[14]

Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. 2023. RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning. arXiv:2307.03838 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2307.03838

2023 arXiv
[15]

James Hutson. 2025. Human-ai collaboration in writing: A multidimensional framework for creative and intellectual authorship.International Journal of Changes in Education(2025)

2025
[16]

Jacalyn Kelly, Tara Sadeghieh, and Khosrow Adeli. 2014. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide.Ejifcc25, 3 (2014), 227

2014
[17]

Junseok Kim, Nakyeong Yang, and Kyomin Jung. 2025. Persona is a Double-Edged Sword: Rethinking the Impact of Role-play Prompts in Zero-shot Reasoning Tasks. InProceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the As...

2025
[18]

Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsuper- vised style transfer as paraphrase generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05700 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[19]

Sandeep Kumar, Samarth Garg, Sagnik Sengupta, Tirthankar Ghosal, and Asif Ekbal. 2025. MixRevDetect: Towards Detecting AI-Generated Content in Hybrid Peer Reviews. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational ...

2025
[20]

Jisoo Lee, Jieun Lee, and Jeong-Ju Yoo. 2025. The role of large language models in the peer-review process: opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors.Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions22 (2025)

2025
[21]

Mc- Farland, and James Y

Weixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp, Hancheng Cao, Xuan- dong Zhao, Lingjiao Chen, Haotian Ye, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Daniel A. Mc- Farland, and James Y. Zou. 2024. Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference ...

2024 arXiv
[22]

Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, et al. 2024. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis.NEJM AI1, 8 (2024), AI...

2024
[23]

Karthik Macharla Vasu et al. 2025. Justice in Judgment: Unveiling (Hidden) Bias in LLM-assisted Peer Reviews.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13400(2025). ��

2025 arXiv
[24]

Eric Mitchell et al. 2023. DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text De- tection using Probability Curvature. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

2023
[25]

Sheila Queralt, Beatriz Esparcia, Marco R Lessi, Lucía Sánchez-Vecina, and Laura C Úbeda-Cuspinera. 2025. AI, Human, or Hybrid? Reliability of AI Detection Tools in Multi-Authored Texts: AI, Human, or Hybrid? Reliability of AI Detection Tools in Multi-Authored Texts.INTELETICA...

2025
[26]

Vishisht Srihari Rao, Aounon Kumar, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Nihar B Shah
[27]

Detecting LLM-generated peer reviews.PLoS One20, 9 (2025), e0331871

2025
[28]

Alex Reinhart, Ben Markey, Michael Laudenbach, Kachatad Pantusen, Ronald Yurko, Gordon Weinberg, and David West Brown. 2025. Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, 8 (2025), e2422455122

2025
[29]

Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Aounon Kumar, Sriram Balasubramanian, Wenxiao Wang, and Soheil Feizi. 2023. Can AI-generated text be reliably detected?arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11156(2023)

2023 arXiv
[30]

Siyuan Shen and Kai Wang. 2026. Detecting AI-Generated Content in Academic Peer Reviews.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00319(2026)

2026
[31]

Paul F Simmering, Benedikt Schulz, Oliver Tabino, and Georg Wittenburg. 2025. Meet Your New Client: Writing Reports for AI–Benchmarking Information Loss in Market Research Deliverables.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15817(2025)

2025 arXiv
[32]

Fiona Anting Tan, Gerard Christopher Yeo, Kokil Jaidka, Fanyou Wu, Weijie Xu, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Yang Liu, and See-Kiong Ng. 2024. Phantom: Persona-based prompting has an effect on theory-of-mind reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02246(2024)

2024 arXiv
[33]

Brian Tufts, Xuandong Zhao, and Lei Li. 2025. A practical examination of AI- generated text detectors for large language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025. 4824–4841

2025
[34]

Eva AM Van Dis, Johan Bollen, Willem Zuidema, Robert Van Rooij, and Claudi L Bockting. 2023. ChatGPT: five priorities for research.Nature614, 7947 (2023), 224–226

2023
[35]

Qingyun Wang, Qi Zeng, Lifu Huang, Kevin Knight, Heng Ji, and Nazneen Fatema Rajani. 2020. ReviewRobot: Explainable paper review generation based on knowl- edge synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06119(2020)

2020 arXiv
[36]

Debora Weber-Wulff, Alla Anohina-Naumeca, Sonja Bjelobaba, Tomáš Folt`ynek, Jean Guerrero-Dib, Olumide Popoola, Petr Šigut, and Lorna Waddington. 2023. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text.International Journal for Educa- tional Integrity19, 1 (2023), 1–39

2023
[37]

Ning Wu, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Shining Liang, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Large language models are diverse role-players for summarization evaluation. InCCF international conference on natural language processing and Chinese computing. Springer, 695–707

2023
[38]

Yihuai Xu, Yongwei Wang, Yifei Bi, Huangsen Cao, Zhouhan Lin, Yu Zhao, and Fei Wu. 2025. Training-free LLM-generated Text Detection by Mining Token Probability Sequences. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=vo4AHjowKi

2025
[39]

Sungduk Yu, Man Luo, Avinash Madasu, Vasudev Lal, and Phillip Howard. 2025. Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276647742

2025
[40]

Weizhe Yuan, Pengfei Liu, and Graham Neubig. 2022. Can we automate scientific reviewing?Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research75 (2022), 171–212

2022
[41]

Xin Zhang, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Wen Xie, Ziqi Dai, Jialong Tang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, et al. 2024. mGTE: Generalized Long-Context Text Representation and Reranking Models for Multilingual Text Retrieval. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference o...

2024
[42]

Lingxuan Zhu, Yancheng Lai, Jiarui Xie, Weiming Mou, Lihaoyun Huang, Chang Qi, Tao Yang, Aimin Jiang, Wenyi Gan, Dongqiang Zeng, et al. 2025. Evaluating the potential risks of employing large language models in peer review.Clinical and Translational Discovery5, 4 (2025), e70067

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sangzin Ahn. 2024. The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology: official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology28, 5 (2024), 393–401

2024

[2] [2]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Sara Salamat, Muhan Li, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. Building Trustworthy Peer Review Quality Assessment Systems. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 6863–6864. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761436

doi:10.1145/3746252.3761436 2025

[3] [3]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Soroush Sadeghian, Seyed Mohammad Hos- seini, Alireza Daqiq, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2026. Can LLMs Uphold Research Integrity? Evaluating the Role of LLMs in Peer Review Quality. InProceedings of the Nineteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’26). 1341–1342. doi:10....

doi:10.1145/3773966.3784970 2026

[4] [4]

Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Sara Salamat, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2024. Reviewerly: Modeling the Reviewer Assignment Task as an Information Retrieval Problem. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 5554–5555. doi:10.1145/ 3627673.3679081

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature. InInternational Conference on Learning Rep- resentations

2024

[6] [6]

Sajad Ebrahimi, Soroush Sadeghian, Ali Ghorbanpour, Negar Arabzadeh, Sara Salamat, Muhan Li, Hai Son Le, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. RottenReviews: Benchmarking Review Quality with Human and LLM-Based Judgments. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 5642–5649. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761506

doi:10.1145/3746252.3761506 2025

[7] [7]

Sajad Ebrahimi, Sara Salamat, Negar Arabzadeh, Mahdi Bashari, and Ebrahim Bagheri. 2025. exHarmony: Authorship and Citations for Benchmarking the Reviewer Assignment Problem. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88714-7_1

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88714-7_1 2025

[8] [8]

Yanai Elazar and Maria Antoniak. 2026. LLM-Generated or Human-Written? Com- paring Review and Non-Review Papers on arXiv.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.17036 (2026)

arXiv 2026