SEAGraph: Unveiling the Whole Story of Paper Review Comments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.11939v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:24:36 GMT
• Title: SEAGraph: Unveiling the Whole Story of Paper Review Comments
• Authors: Jianxiang Yu, Jiaqi Tan, Zichen Ding, Jiapeng Zhu, Jiahao Li, Yao Cheng, Qier Cui, Yunshi Lan, Xiang Li,
• Abstract summary: In the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback.<n>This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments.<n>We present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions.
• Score: 26.39115060771725
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Peer review, as a cornerstone of scientific research, ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly work by providing authors with objective feedback for refinement. However, in the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback, which provides limited assistance and leads to a more time-consuming review cycle. If authors can identify some specific weaknesses in their paper, they can not only address the reviewer's concerns but also improve their work. This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments. In this paper, we present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions behind them. We construct two types of graphs for each paper: the semantic mind graph, which captures the author's thought process, and the hierarchical background graph, which delineates the research domains related to the paper. A retrieval method is then designed to extract relevant content from both graphs, facilitating coherent explanations for the review comments. Extensive experiments show that SEAGraph excels in review comment understanding tasks, offering significant benefits to authors.

Related papers

• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving fine-grained aspects from a corpus of peer reviews. We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Understanding and Supporting Peer Review Using AI-reframed Positive Summary [18.686807993563168]
  This study explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task. We found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance. We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how it can influence critique acceptance and support research communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T11:22:12Z)
• Generative Adversarial Reviews: When LLMs Become the Critic [1.2430809884830318]
  We introduce Generative Agent Reviewers (GAR), leveraging LLM-empowered agents to simulate faithful peer reviewers.<n>Central to this approach is a graph-based representation of manuscripts, condensing content and logically organizing information.<n>Our experiments demonstrate that GAR performs comparably to human reviewers in providing detailed feedback and predicting paper outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T06:58:17Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Polarity in the Classroom: A Case Study Leveraging Peer Sentiment Toward Scalable Assessment [4.588028371034406]
  Accurately grading open-ended assignments in large or massive open online courses (MOOCs) is non-trivial. In this work, we detail the process by which we create our domain-dependent lexicon and aspect-informed review form. We end by analyzing validity and discussing conclusions from our corpus of over 6800 peer reviews from nine courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T15:45:11Z)
• Rating and aspect-based opinion graph embeddings for explainable recommendations [69.9674326582747]
  We propose to exploit embeddings extracted from graphs that combine information from ratings and aspect-based opinions expressed in textual reviews. We then adapt and evaluate state-of-the-art graph embedding techniques over graphs generated from Amazon and Yelp reviews on six domains, outperforming baseline recommenders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T14:07:07Z)
• Graphing else matters: exploiting aspect opinions and ratings in explainable graph-based recommendations [66.83527496838937]
  We propose to exploit embeddings extracted from graphs that combine information from ratings and aspect-based opinions expressed in textual reviews. We then adapt and evaluate state-of-the-art graph embedding techniques over graphs generated from Amazon and Yelp reviews on six domains. Our approach has the advantage of providing explanations which leverage aspect-based opinions given by users about recommended items.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T13:57:28Z)
• 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)
• ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis [62.76038841302741]
  We build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. Experimental results show that our review score predictor reaches 71.4%-100% accuracy. Human assessment by domain experts shows that 41.7%-70.5% of the comments generated by ReviewRobot are valid and constructive, and better than human-written ones for 20% of the time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T02:17:58Z)

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.