mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis

arXiv 2010.06119 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2020cs.CL cs.AIcited by 53

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

To assist human review process, we build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. A good review needs to be knowledgeable, namely that the comments should be constructive and informative to help improve the paper; and explainable by providing detailed evidence. ReviewRobot achieves these goals via three steps: (1) We perform domain-specific Information Extraction to construct a knowledge graph (KG) from the target paper under review, a related work KG from the papers cited by the target paper, and a background KG from a large collection of previous papers in the domain. (2) By comparing these three KGs, we predict a review score and detailed structured knowledge as evidence for each review category. (3) We carefully select and generalize human review sentences into templates, and apply these templates to transform the review scores and evidence into natural language comments. 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. Thus, ReviewRobot can serve as an assistant for paper reviewers, program chairs and authors.

Key facts. Cited by 53 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 4; 2023: 4; 2024: 9; 2025: 13; 2026: 18.

53 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 118
  2. 2024MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 98
  3. 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Processcited by 97
  4. 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
  5. 2024OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviewscited by 63
  6. 2024LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewingcited by 62
  7. 2025Transforming Science with Large Language Models: A Survey on AI-assisted Scientific Discovery, Experimentation, Content Generation, and Evaluationcited by 41
  8. 2022Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Reviewcited by 37
  9. 2024Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistancecited by 33
  10. 2024Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysiscited by 33
  11. 2022Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approachcited by 23
  12. 2021Automated scholarly paper review: Concepts, technologies, and challengescited by 21
38 more
  1. 2021Human Evaluation of Creative NLG Systems: An Interdisciplinary Survey on Recent Paperscited by 18
  2. 2022A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publicationscited by 18
  3. 2025The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authorscited by 16
  4. 2025How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?cited by 15
  5. 2023Scientific Opinion Summarization: Paper Meta-review Generation Dataset, Methods, and Evaluationcited by 14
  6. 2021Controllable and Diverse Text Generation in E-commercecited by 13
  7. 2025Unveiling the Merits and Defects of LLMs in Automatic Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 12
  8. 2023SmartBook: AI-Assisted Situation Report Generation for Intelligence Analystscited by 9
  9. 2025REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
  10. 2025Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Processcited by 8
  11. 2024Leveraging Professional Radiologists' Expertise to Enhance LLMs' Evaluation for Radiology Reportscited by 7
  12. 2026NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessmentcited by 6
  13. 2026Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Futurecited by 6
  14. 2025A Multi-Task Evaluation of LLMs' Processing of Academic Text Inputcited by 5
  15. 2021Determining the Credibility of Science Communicationcited by 4
  16. 2022Did AI get more negative recently?cited by 4
  17. 2025Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviewscited by 4
  18. 2025A Human-AI Collaborative Workflow for Mathematical Discovery: A Case Study in Grover-Compatible Riemannian Optimizationcited by 4
  19. 2026RIGOURATE: Quantifying Scientific Exaggeration with Evidence-Aligned Claim Evaluationcited by 3
  20. 2024Streamlining the review process: AI-generated annotations in research manuscriptscited by 2
  21. 2025MuISQA: Multi-Intent Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Scientific Question Answeringcited by 2
  22. 2025Multi-Agent LLMs for Generating Research Limitationscited by 2
  23. 2026When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?cited by 2
  24. 2023Speculative Exploration on the Concept of Artificial Agents Conducting Autonomous Researchcited by 1
  25. 2024Deep Transfer Learning Based Peer Review Aggregation and Meta-review Generation for Scientific Articlescited by 1
  26. 2024Gene-Metabolite Association Prediction with Interactive Knowledge Transfer Enhanced Graph for Metabolite Productioncited by 1
  27. 2025GUIDE: Towards Scalable Advising for Research Ideascited by 1
  28. 2026What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?cited by 1
  29. 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation Systemcited by 1
  30. 2026MemoNoveltyAgent: A Historical Research Memory-Aware Agent Workflow for Paper Novelty Assessmentcited by 1
  31. 2026Decoupling Scores and Text: The Politeness Principle in Peer Reviewcited by 1
  32. 2026Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communicationscited by 1
  33. 2026LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challengescited by 1
  34. 2026Do Methods Support the Claims? Intra-Paper Verification for Peer Reviewcited by 1
  35. 2026PaperGuide: Making Small Language-Model Paper-Reading Agents More Efficientcited by 0
  36. 2026Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challengecited by 0
  37. 2026Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AIcited by 0
  38. 2026Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generationcited by 0

50 most cited of 53 All 53 (JSON)