ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12587v2
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 02:02:27 GMT
• Title: ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews
• Authors: Mike D'Arcy, Alexis Ross, Erin Bransom, Bailey Kuehl, Jonathan Bragg, Tom Hope, Doug Downey,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the task of automatically revising scientific papers based on peer feedback. We provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author in response. In experiments with 10 models covering the state of the art, we find that they struggle even to identify which edits correspond to a comment.
• Score: 36.76200047558003
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce the task of automatically revising scientific papers based on peer feedback and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits. The data is drawn from real reviewer-author interactions from computer science, and we provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author in response. We automatically create a high-precision silver training set, as well as an expert-labeled test set that shows high inter-annotator agreement. In experiments with 10 models covering the state of the art, we find that they struggle even to identify which edits correspond to a comment -- especially when the relationship between the edit and the comment is indirect and requires reasoning to uncover. We also extensively analyze GPT-4's ability to generate edits given a comment and the original paper. We find that it often succeeds on a superficial level, but tends to rigidly follow the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and lacks technical details compared to human-written edits.

Related papers

• Re3: A Holistic Framework and Dataset for Modeling Collaborative Document Revision [62.12545440385489]
  We introduce Re3, a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision. We present Re3-Sci, a large corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent. We use the new data to provide first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T21:19:09Z)
• Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance [6.559560602099439]
  SWIF$2$T: a Scientific WrIting Focused Feedback Tool. It is designed to generate specific, actionable and coherent comments, which identify weaknesses in a scientific paper and/or propose revisions to it. We compile a dataset of 300 peer reviews citing weaknesses in scientific papers and conduct human evaluation. The results demonstrate the superiority in specificity, reading comprehension, and overall helpfulness of SWIF$2$T's feedback compared to other approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T20:56:41Z)
• CASIMIR: A Corpus of Scientific Articles enhanced with Multiple Author-Integrated Revisions [7.503795054002406]
  We propose an original textual resource on the revision step of the writing process of scientific articles. This new dataset, called CASIMIR, contains the multiple revised versions of 15,646 scientific articles from OpenReview, along with their peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T03:07:32Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer Reviews [24.875901048855077]
  We introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T11:57:51Z)
• Beyond the Chat: Executable and Verifiable Text-Editing with LLMs [87.84199761550634]
  Conversational interfaces powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently become a popular way to obtain feedback during document editing. We present InkSync, an editing interface that suggests executable edits directly within the document being edited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T00:56:17Z)
• Scientific Opinion Summarization: Paper Meta-review Generation Dataset, Methods, and Evaluation [55.00687185394986]
  We propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. We introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences. Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:33:35Z)
• Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Text [10.714872525208385]
  IteraTeR is the first large-scale, multi-domain, edit-intention annotated corpus of iteratively revised text. We better understand the text revision process, making vital connections between edit intentions and writing quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T01:47:42Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviews [12.472629584751509]
  We show that the distribution of aspect-based sentiments obtained from a review is significantly different for accepted and rejected papers. As a second objective, we quantify the extent of disagreement among the reviewers refereeing a paper. We also investigate the extent of disagreement between the reviewers and the chair and find that the inter-reviewer disagreement may have a link to the disagreement with the chair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T07:06:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.