Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper reports on a large-scale deployment of AI-assisted peer review at AAAI-26, where every main-track submission received an AI-generated review. The AI system combined advanced models, tool use, and safeguards to generate reviews for 22,977 papers in under a day. Survey results indicated that participants found the AI reviews useful and, surprisingly, preferred them to human reviews in terms of technical accuracy and research suggestions.
AI-generated peer reviews aren't just viable at scale, they're preferred by researchers over human reviews for technical accuracy and actionable feedback.
Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.
