On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Forecasting-Based Biomedical Time-series Data Synthesis for Open Data and Robust AI

The limited data availability due to strict privacy regulations and significant resource demands severely constrains biomedical time-series AI development, which creates a critical gap between data requirements and accessibility. Synthetic data generation presents a promising solution by producing artificial datasets that maintain the statistical properties of real biomedical time-series data without compromising patient confidentiality. We propose a framework for synthetic biomedical time-series data generation based on advanced forecasting models that accurately replicates complex electrophysiological signals such as EEG and EMG with high fidelity. These synthetic datasets preserve essential temporal and spectral properties of real data, which enables robust analysis while effectively addressing data scarcity and privacy challenges. Our evaluations across multiple subjects demonstrate that the generated synthetic data can serve as an effective substitute for real data and also significantly boost AI model performance. The approach maintains critical biomedical features while provides high scalability for various applications and integrates seamlessly into open-source repositories, substantially expanding resources for AI-driven biomedical research.