PeerArg: Argumentative Peer Review with LLMs
Peer review is an essential process to determine the quality of papers submitted to scientific conferences or journals. However, it is subjective and prone to biases. Several studies have been conducted to apply techniques from NLP to support peer review, but they are based on black-box techniques and their outputs are difficult to interpret and trust. In this paper, we propose a novel pipeline to support and understand the reviewing and decision-making processes of peer review: the PeerArg system combining LLMs with methods from knowledge representation. PeerArg takes in input a set of reviews for a paper and outputs the paper acceptance prediction. We evaluate the performance of the PeerArg pipeline on three different datasets, in comparison with a novel end-2-end LLM that uses few-shot learning to predict paper acceptance given reviews. The results indicate that the end-2-end LLM is capable of predicting paper acceptance from reviews, but a variant of the PeerArg pipeline outperforms this LLM.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingFew-Shot LearningMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
A Corpus for Argumentative Writing Support in German
In this paper, we present a novel annotation approach to capture claims and premises of arguments and their relations in student-written persuasive peer reviews on business models in German language. We propose an annota…
APE: Argument Pair Extraction from Peer Review and Rebuttal via Multi-task Learning
Peer review and rebuttal, with rich interactions and argumentative discussions in between, are naturally a good resource to mine arguments. However, few works study both of them simultaneously. In this paper, we introduc…
Argument Pair Extraction (APE)Multi-Task LearningRelation ClassificationArgument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviews
Peer-review plays a critical role in the scientific writing and publication ecosystem. To assess the efficiency and efficacy of the reviewing process, one essential element is to understand and evaluate the reviews thems…
Argument MiningReviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback
Peer review is central to scientific quality, yet reliance on simple heuristics -- lazy thinking -- has lowered standards. Prior work treats lazy thinking detection as a single-label task, but review segments may exhibit…
DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussions
At the foundation of scientific evaluation is the labor-intensive process of peer review. This critical task requires participants to consume vast amounts of highly technical text. Prior work has annotated different aspe…
Sentence