Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05688v1
• Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:24:17 GMT
• Title: Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions
• Authors: Cheng Tan, Dongxin Lyu, Siyuan Li, Zhangyang Gao, Jingxuan Wei, Siqi Ma, Zicheng Liu, Stan Z. Li,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields. We reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources.
• Score: 62.0123588983514
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.

Related papers

• DiSCo Meets LLMs: A Unified Approach for Sparse Retrieval and Contextual Distillation in Conversational Search [19.694957365385896]
  Conversational Search (CS) is the task of retrieving relevant documents from a corpus within a conversational context. Current methods address this by distilling embeddings from human-rewritten queries to learn the context modeling task. We propose a new distillation method, as a relaxation of the previous objective, unifying retrieval and context modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:03:17Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• ProCIS: A Benchmark for Proactive Retrieval in Conversations [21.23826888841565]
  We introduce a large-scale dataset for proactive document retrieval that consists of over 2.8 million conversations. We conduct crowdsourcing experiments to obtain high-quality and relatively complete relevance judgments. We also collect annotations related to the parts of the conversation that are related to each document, enabling us to evaluate proactive retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T13:11:07Z)
• Prompting LLMs to Compose Meta-Review Drafts from Peer-Review Narratives of Scholarly Manuscripts [6.2701471990853594]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate meta-reviews based on peer-review narratives from multiple experts. In this paper, we perform a case study with three popular LLMs to automatically generate meta-reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T20:14:16Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• FCC: Fusing Conversation History and Candidate Provenance for Contextual Response Ranking in Dialogue Systems [53.89014188309486]
  We present a flexible neural framework that can integrate contextual information from multiple channels. We evaluate our model on the MSDialog dataset widely used for evaluating conversational response ranking tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-31T23:58:28Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Review [52.359007622096684]
  Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. Existing NLP studies focus on the analysis of individual texts. editorial assistance often requires modeling interactions between pairs of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-22T16:39:38Z)

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.