EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation
Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often produce generic comments with insufficient evidence support and weak source traceability, while complex multi-agent systems incur high inference costs. To address these challenges, we propose EGTR-Review, an Evidence-Grounded and Traceable Review Generation framework via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation. EGTR-Review first constructs a multi-agent teacher that performs structure-aware paper decomposition, key-element extraction, external scholarly evidence retrieval, evidence-state labeling, verification reasoning, and review synthesis. It then distills both intermediate reasoning trajectories and final review comments into a lightweight student model through task-prefix-driven multi-task learning. An evidence-weighted objective further reduces the influence of weak, missing, or non-verifiable supervision. Experiments on public peer-review datasets show that EGTR-Review (Student) outperforms strong prompt-based, fine-tuned, and structured/agentic baselines across automatic metrics, LLM-as-Judge evaluation, and human evaluation, while maintaining strong factual grounding and source traceability with substantially lower token consumption and inference time. Our code, prompts, configurations, and sample data are available on GitHub.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Multi-Task LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
AutoSupervision: Closing the Feedback Loop in Scientific Workflows with Grounded Revision Verification
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled AI systems to assist scientific research and peer review. However, an essential capability for reliable AI-assisted scientific workflows remains underexplored:…
SciFigAlign: Scoring Scientific Figures by Fine-tuned Alignment of Visuals with Manuscript Evidence
Scientific figure assessment in peer review differs fundamentally from general image quality evaluation: a figure must be visually legible, faithfully support the manuscript's claims, and communicate evidence with a clea…
WarrantScore: Modeling Warrants between Claims and Evidence for Substantiation Evaluation in Peer Reviews
The scientific peer-review process is facing a shortage of human resources due to the rapid growth in the number of submitted papers. The use of language models to reduce the human cost of peer review has been actively e…
Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews
With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one pop…
Argument MiningPeerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews
Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifia…
Natural Language InferenceInformation Retrieval