ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10308v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 03:26:13 GMT
• Title: ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL
• Abstract summary: Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical depth.<n>We introduce ReviewRL, a reinforcement learning framework for generating comprehensive and factually grounded scientific paper reviews.<n>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.
• Score: 16.43785996852824
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time [55.756345497678204]
  We introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality.<n>We apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL.<n>We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:48:29Z)
• Code Review Automation using Retrieval Augmented Generation [3.438467395627969]
  Code review is essential for maintaining software quality but is labor-intensive.<n> deep learning-based generative techniques and retrieval-based methods have demonstrated strong performance in this task.<n>We introduce Retrieval-Augmented Reviewer (RARe), which combines retrieval-based and generative methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T15:02:42Z)
• Critique-RL: Training Language Models for Critiquing through Two-Stage Reinforcement Learning [89.60378227969643]
  We propose Critique-RL, an online RL approach for developing critiquing language models without stronger supervision.<n>Our approach operates on a two-player paradigm: the actor generates a response, the critic provides feedback, and the actor refines the response accordingly.<n>Experiments across various tasks and models show that Critique-RL delivers substantial performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T11:37:01Z)
• ReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer Review [23.630458187587223]
  ReviewerToo is a framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review.<n>It supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria.<n>We show how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T23:53:19Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback [59.078756231841574]
  Critique-GRPO is an online RL framework that integrates both natural language and numerical feedback for effective policy optimization.<n>We show Critique-GRPO consistently outperforms supervised learning and RL-based fine-tuning methods across eight challenging mathematical, STEM, and general reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T17:39:02Z)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review.<n>We propose ReviewEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews that measures alignment with human assessments, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, identifies degree of constructiveness and adherence to reviewer guidelines.<n>This paper establishes essential metrics for AIbased peer review and substantially enhances the reliability and impact of AI-generated reviews in academic research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• 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)
• Reinforcement Learning in Dynamic Treatment Regimes Needs Critical Reexamination [7.162274565861427]
  offline reinforcement learning in dynamic treatment regimes presents a mix of unprecedented opportunities and challenges. We argue for a reassessment of applying RL in dynamic treatment regimes citing concerns such as inconsistent and potentially inconclusive evaluation metrics. We demonstrate that the performance of RL algorithms can significantly vary with changes in evaluation metrics and Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T20:03:18Z)

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.