DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08569v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:59:43 GMT
• Title: DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process
• Abstract summary: DeepReview is a framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation.<n>In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21% and 80.20% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations.
• Score: 30.710131188931317
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in scientific research assessment, particularly in automated paper review. However, existing LLM-based review systems face significant challenges, including limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepReview, a multi-stage framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. Using DeepReview-13K, a curated dataset with structured annotations, we train DeepReviewer-14B, which outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens. In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21\% and 80.20\% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations. Our work sets a new benchmark for LLM-based paper review, with all resources publicly available. The code, model, dataset and demo have be released in http://ai-researcher.net.

Related papers

• ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation [54.82704239643649]
  We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans.<n>Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback.<n>We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:30:16Z)
• From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent [52.42081442204093]
  We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper.<n>We propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log.<n> Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T13:38:23Z)
• PRAIB: Peer Review AI Benchmark of Behaviour of LLM-Assisted Reviewing [0.0]
  We introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers.<n>Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T11:59:54Z)
• ReviewGrounder: Improving Review Substantiveness with Rubric-Guided, Tool-Integrated Agents [50.27474750319121]
  Review text according to paper-specific rubrics derived from official guidelines, the paper's content, and human-written reviews.<n>We introduce REVIEWBENCH, a benchmark evaluating review text according to paper-specific rubrics derived from official guidelines, the paper's content, and human-written reviews.<n>We propose REVIEWGROUNDER, a rubric-guided, tool-integrated multi-agent framework that decomposes reviewing into drafting and grounding stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T16:33:04Z)
• Reviewing the Reviewer: Elevating Peer Review Quality through LLM-Guided Feedback [75.31379834079648]
  We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments.<n>We also release LazyReviewPlus, a dataset of 1,309 sentences labeled for lazy thinking and specificity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T20:32:18Z)
• Unveiling the Merits and Defects of LLMs in Automatic Review Generation for Scientific Papers [4.455306283717651]
  The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process.<n>We propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics.<n>We construct a benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-13T19:15:22Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation [0.552480439325792]
  We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges.<n> o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost.<n>This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:14:30Z)
• LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews [74.87393214734114]
  This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews [26.031039064337907]
  Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community.<n>With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge.<n>We propose ReviewAgents, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate academic paper reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T14:56:58Z)
• DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generation [11.010557279355885]
  This study empirically analyzes benchmark comments using a novel set of criteria informed by prior research and developer interviews.<n>Our evaluation framework, DeepCRCEval, integrates human evaluators and Large Language Models (LLMs) for a comprehensive reassessment of current techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T08:53:54Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs. Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets. We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews [3.660182910533372]
  OpenReviewer is an open-source system for generating high-quality peer reviews of machine learning and AI conference papers.<n>Llama-OpenReviewer-8B is an 8B parameter language model specifically fine-tuned on 79,000 expert reviews from top conferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T16:31:00Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond [68.47402386668846]
  We introduce Structured Reasoning In Critical Text Assessment (STRICTA) to model text assessment as an explicit, step-wise reasoning process.<n>STRICTA breaks down the assessment into a graph of interconnected reasoning steps drawing on causality theory.<n>We apply STRICTA to a dataset of over 4000 reasoning steps from roughly 40 biomedical experts on more than 20 papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T06:55:37Z)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions [62.0123588983514]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T08:24:17Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges [57.88520765782177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. We propose a coherent taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics, offering a structured framework to understand and compare these methods. By discussing unresolved challenges, including bias, robustness, domain-specificity, and unified evaluation, this paper seeks to offer insights to researchers and advocate for fairer and more advanced NLG evaluation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T15:59:09Z)

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.