RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09723v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:30:55 GMT
• Title: RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation
• Abstract summary: Many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses.<n>We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning.
• Score: 47.274230235946625
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

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)
• 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)
• OpinioRAG: Towards Generating User-Centric Opinion Highlights from Large-scale Online Reviews [12.338320566839483]
  We study the problem of opinion highlights generation from large volumes of user reviews.<n>Existing methods either fail to scale or produce generic, one-size-fits-all summaries that overlook personalized needs.<n>We introduce OpinioRAG, a scalable, training-free framework that combines RAG-based evidence retrieval with LLMs to efficiently produce tailored summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-30T00:00:34Z)
• 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.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting.<n> instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>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)
• Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation [28.050468098801872]
  We propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2.<n>Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address.<n>We generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:43:10Z)
• Towards Personalized Review Summarization by Modeling Historical Reviews from Customer and Product Separately [59.61932899841944]
  Review summarization is a non-trivial task that aims to summarize the main idea of the product review in the E-commerce website. We propose the Heterogeneous Historical Review aware Review Summarization Model (HHRRS) We employ a multi-task framework that conducts the review sentiment classification and summarization jointly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T12:32:55Z)
• How Useful are Reviews for Recommendation? A Critical Review and Potential Improvements [8.471274313213092]
  We investigate a growing body of work that seeks to improve recommender systems through the use of review text. Our initial findings reveal several discrepancies in reported results, partly due to copying results across papers despite changes in experimental settings or data pre-processing. Further investigation calls for discussion on a much larger problem about the "importance" of user reviews for recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T16:30:05Z)

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.