Speech language models (SpeechLMs) have achieved substantial progress by extending large language models (LLMs) to the speech modality. However, SpeechLM evaluation remains heavily centered on English, limiting reliable assessment of multilingual speech capabilities. Straightforward benchmark transfer through ASR, translation, normalization, and TTS can corrupt language-specific instructions, answer constraints, and spoken forms; for audio understanding, transferring source-language audio also fails to preserve target-language speaker attributes, accents, and paralinguistic properties. To address these limitations, we propose two human-agent benchmark-construction frameworks: one transfers source-language SpokenQA benchmarks into target-language SpokenQA benchmarks, and the other converts target-language ASR corpora into audio understanding benchmarks using transcriptions and speaker metadata. Using these frameworks, we construct and publicly release three Korean speech benchmarks: KVoiceBench and KOpenAudioBench for Korean SpokenQA, and KMMAU for Korean audio understanding, comprising 12,345 samples in total. We evaluate eight recent SpeechLMs and find that English–Korean performance gaps vary substantially across models and task families, and that SpokenQA and audio understanding rankings diverge, revealing complementary weaknesses invisible to English-only evaluation.

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs. The models show F1 scores of 0.4–0.5 and kappa scores of 0.3–0.4, indicating moderate agreement but also suggesting that fully automating the evaluation remains challenging. A thorough disagreement analysis reveals that most errors are due to models’ incorrect reasoning. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality.