paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation

2026-03-10 · Sihong Wu, Yiling Ma, Yilun Zhao, Tiansheng Hu, Owen Jiang, Manasi Patwardhan, Arman Cohan arxiv

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2603.09723

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation

2026-09-08 · Yiling Ma, Yilun Zhao, Sihong Wu, Ziyu Chen 외 hf

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-r…

Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025

2025-04-13 · Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg 외

Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction. To address these issues, we developed Review Feedback Agent, a…

Paper2Rebuttal: A Multi-Agent Framework for Transparent Author Response Assistance

2026-01-20 · Qianli Ma, Chang Guo, Zhiheng Tian, Siyu Wang 외 arxiv

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a di…

Text Generation

Rebuttals Move Peer-Review Scores, but Initial-Review Structure Bounds the Movement

2026-06-20 · Mathieu Louis, Tibo Vanleke, Vincent Ginis, Andres Algaba arxiv

Author rebuttals are the main post-submission window in peer review, but their effect on reviewer scores remains hard to measure because score updates mix rebuttal content with initial score position, paper-level consens…

Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process

2025-11-19 · Amir Hossein Kargaran, Nafiseh Nikeghbal, Jing Yang, Nedjma Ousidhoum arxiv

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucia…