ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL
Peer review is essential for scientific progress but faces growing challenges due to increasing submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical depth, often generating superficial or generic feedback lacking the insights characteristic of high-quality human reviews. We introduce ReviewRL, a reinforcement learning framework for generating comprehensive and factually grounded scientific paper reviews. Our approach combines: (1) an ArXiv-MCP retrieval-augmented context generation pipeline that incorporates relevant scientific literature, (2) supervised fine-tuning that establishes foundational reviewing capabilities, and (3) a reinforcement learning procedure with a composite reward function that jointly enhances review quality and rating accuracy. Experiments on ICLR 2025 papers demonstrate that ReviewRL significantly outperforms existing methods across both rule-based metrics and model-based quality assessments. ReviewRL establishes a foundational framework for RL-driven automatic critique generation in scientific discovery, demonstrating promising potential for future development in this domain. The implementation of ReviewRL will be released at GitHub.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Reinforcement LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
EchoReview: Learning Peer Review from the Echoes of Scientific Citations
As the volume of scientific submissions continues to grow rapidly, traditional peer review systems are facing unprecedented scalability pressures, highlighting the urgent need for automated reviewing methods that are bot…
LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Alth…
Domain GeneralizationAutomated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance
Scientific writing is a challenging task, particularly for novice researchers who often rely on feedback from experienced peers. Recent work has primarily focused on improving surface form and style rather than manuscrip…
Reading ComprehensionSpecificityAutomated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis
In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Lang…
FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers
The identification and localization of errors is a core task in peer review, yet the exponential growth of scientific output has made it increasingly difficult for human reviewers to reliably detect errors given the limi…