Defend: Automated Rebuttals for Peer Review with Minimal Author Guidance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27360v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 18:12:31 GMT
• Title: Defend: Automated Rebuttals for Peer Review with Minimal Author Guidance
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to perform targeted refutation and maintain accurate factual grounding when used directly for rebuttal generation.<n>We introduce DEFEND an LLM based tool designed to explicitly execute the underlying reasoning process of automated rebuttal generation.<n>As opposed to writing the rebuttals from scratch, the author needs to only drive the reasoning process with minimal intervention.
• Score: 4.655159257282135
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Rebuttal generation is a critical component of the peer review process for scientific papers, enabling authors to clarify misunderstandings, correct factual inaccuracies, and guide reviewers toward a more accurate evaluation. We observe that Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to perform targeted refutation and maintain accurate factual grounding when used directly for rebuttal generation, highlighting the need for structured reasoning and author intervention. To address this, in the paper, we introduce DEFEND an LLM based tool designed to explicitly execute the underlying reasoning process of automated rebuttal generation, while keeping the author-in-the-loop. As opposed to writing the rebuttals from scratch, the author needs to only drive the reasoning process with minimal intervention, leading an efficient approach with minimal effort and less cognitive load. We compare DEFEND against three other paradigms: (i) Direct rebuttal generation using LLM (DRG), (ii) Segment-wise rebuttal generation using LLM (SWRG), and (iii) Sequential approach (SA) of segment-wise rebuttal generation without author intervention. To enable finegrained evaluation, we extend the ReviewCritique dataset, creating review segmentation, deficiency, error type annotations, rebuttal-action labels, and mapping to gold rebuttal segments. Experimental results and a user study demonstrate that directly using LLMs perform poorly in factual correctness and targeted refutation. Segment-wise generation and the automated sequential approach with author-in-the-loop, substantially improve factual correctness and strength of refutation.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Write Reliable Rubrics? A Meta-Evaluation for Experiment Reproduction [38.170020271877085]
  We present the first systematic meta-evaluation of LLM-generated rubrics for paper reproduction.<n>We reformulate rubrics into a checklist-style format and evaluate four generation settings across two backbone models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T14:52:42Z)
• Incorporating Self-Rewriting into Large Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement [54.63337314382886]
  We introduce self-rewriting framework, where a model rewrites its own reasoning texts, and subsequently learns from the rewritten reasoning to improve internal thought process quality.<n>For algorithm design, we propose a selective rewriting approach wherein only "simple" samples, defined by the model's consistent correctness, are rewritten.<n>Experiments on diverse tasks with different model sizes validate the effectiveness of self-rewriting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T13:10:52Z)
• Automatic Paper Reviewing with Heterogeneous Graph Reasoning over LLM-Simulated Reviewer-Author Debates [27.434014916351348]
  We propose ReViewGraph, a novel framework that performs heterogeneous graph reasoning over multi-round reviewer-author debates.<n>By applying graph neural networks to reason over these structured debate graphs, ReViewGraph captures fine-grained argumentative dynamics and enables more informed review decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T14:46:07Z)
• Arg-LLaDA: Argument Summarization via Large Language Diffusion Models and Sufficiency-Aware Refinement [27.673022970833163]
  We introduce Arg-LLaDA, a novel large language diffusion framework that iteratively improves summaries.<n>Our method combines a flexible masking controller with a sufficiency-checking module to identify and revise unsupported, redundant, or incomplete spans.<n> Empirical results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that Arg-LLaDA surpasses state-of-the-art baselines in 7 out of 10 automatic evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T09:07:52Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Analysing Zero-Shot Readability-Controlled Sentence Simplification [54.09069745799918]
  We investigate how different types of contextual information affect a model's ability to generate sentences with the desired readability.<n>Results show that all tested models struggle to simplify sentences due to models' limitations and characteristics of the source sentences.<n>Our experiments also highlight the need for better automatic evaluation metrics tailored to RCTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T12:36:25Z)
• RDBE: Reasoning Distillation-Based Evaluation Enhances Automatic Essay Scoring [0.0]
  Reasoning Distillation-Based Evaluation (RDBE) integrates interpretability to elucidate the rationale behind model scores. Our experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of RDBE across all scoring rubrics considered in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T05:49:01Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection [74.51523859064802]
  We introduce a new framework called Self-Reflective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Self-RAG) Self-RAG enhances an LM's quality and factuality through retrieval and self-reflection. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and retrieval-augmented models on a diverse set of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:18:32Z)
• HyPoradise: An Open Baseline for Generative Speech Recognition with Large Language Models [81.56455625624041]
  We introduce the first open-source benchmark to utilize external large language models (LLMs) for ASR error correction. The proposed benchmark contains a novel dataset, HyPoradise (HP), encompassing more than 334,000 pairs of N-best hypotheses. LLMs with reasonable prompt and its generative capability can even correct those tokens that are missing in N-best list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T14:44:10Z)
• REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations [47.36251998678097]
  We introduce REFINER, a framework for finetuning language models to generate intermediate inferences. REFINER works by interacting with a critic model that provides automated feedback on the reasoning. Empirical evaluations show significant improvements over baseline LMs of comparable scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T15:57:28Z)

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.