Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design a Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit hallucinations, generating factually incorrect or semantically irrelevant content in response to prompts. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can mitigate hallucinations by encouraging step-by-step reasoning, but its impact on hallucination detection remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we conduct a systematic empirical evaluation. We begin with a pilot experiment, revealing that CoT reasoning significantly affects the LLM’s internal states and token probability distributions. Building on this, we evaluate the impact of various CoT prompting methods on mainstream hallucination detection methods across both instruction-tuned and reasoning-oriented LLMs. Specifically, we examine three key dimensions: changes in hallucination score distributions, variations in detection accuracy, and shifts in detection confidence. Our findings show that while CoT prompting helps reduce hallucination frequency, it also tends to obscure critical signals used for detection, impairing the effectiveness of various detection methods. Our study highlights an overlooked trade-off in the use of reasoning. Code is publicly available at: https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/cot-hallu-detect .

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is fundamental, particularly in the context of practical applications. Conventional evaluation methods, typically designed primarily for LLM development, yield numerical scores that ignore the user experience. Therefore, our study shifts the focus from model-centered to human-centered evaluation in the context of AI-powered writing assistance applications. Our proposed metric, termed “Revision Distance,” utilizes LLMs to suggest revision edits that mimic the human writing process. It is determined by counting the revision edits generated by LLMs. Benefiting from the generated revision edit details, our metric can provide a self-explained text evaluation result in a human-understandable manner beyond the context-independent score. Our results show that for the easy-writing task, “Revision Distance” is consistent with established metrics (ROUGE, Bert-score, and GPT-score), but offers more insightful, detailed feedback and better distinguishes between texts. Moreover, in the context of challenging academic writing tasks, our metric still delivers reliable evaluations where other metrics tend to struggle. Furthermore, our metric also holds significant potential for scenarios lacking reference texts.