Re3: A Holistic Framework and Dataset for Modeling Collaborative Document Revision
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Collaborative review and revision of textual documents is the core of knowledge work and a promising target for empirical analysis and NLP assistance. Yet, a holistic framework that would allow modeling complex relationships between document revisions, reviews and author responses is lacking. To address this gap, we introduce Re3, a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision. We instantiate this framework in the scholarly domain, and present Re3-Sci, a large corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent, and supplemented with the respective peer reviews and human-written edit summaries. We use the new data to provide first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain, and to assess the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs at automating edit analysis and facilitating text-based collaboration. We make our annotation environment and protocols, the resulting data and experimental code publicly available.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2024.
Builds on
18 of 31 references.
References · 18
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2019ScispaCy: Fast and Robust Models for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 244
- 2020Neural CRF Model for Sentence Alignment in Text Simplificationcited by 106
- 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
- 2022Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Textcited by 57
- 2019Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviewscited by 41
- 2022Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Reviewcited by 37
- 2021DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussionscited by 36
- 2023ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviewscited by 34
- 2019Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conferencecited by 31
6 more
- 2018WikiAtomicEdits: A Multilingual Corpus of Wikipedia Edits for Modeling Language and Discoursecited by 26
- 2022HiStruct+: Improving Extractive Text Summarization with Hierarchical Structure Informationcited by 26
- 2022arXivEdits: Understanding the Human Revision Process in Scientific Writingcited by 26
- 2022NewsEdits: A News Article Revision Dataset and a Document-Level Reasoning Challengecited by 20
- 2020Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviewscited by 16
- 2014A Corpus of Sentence-level Revisions in Academic Writing: A Step towards Understanding Statement Strength in Communicationcited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 7.
11 papers.
- 2025PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviewscited by 22
- 2024Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisionscited by 11
- 2026Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Reviewcited by 4
- 2025Efficient Layer-wise LLM Fine-tuning for Revision Intention Predictioncited by 3
- 2026EarlySciRev: A Dataset of Early-Stage Scientific Revisions Extracted from LaTeX Writing Tracescited by 1
- 2025Zero-shot reasoning for simulating scholarly peer-reviewcited by 0
- 2026Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Timecited by 0
- 2026Intention-Adaptive LLM Fine-Tuning for Text Revision Generationcited by 0
- 2026WikiSTAR: A System for Shedding Light on the Hidden History of Scientific Wikipedia Articlescited by 0
- 2026Heterogeneous Element-Aware Cross-Version Differencing of Scientific Documents via Layout-Aware Alignment and Structure-Aware Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidencecited by 0
- 2026ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidence10 Sep 2026
- 2026WikiSTAR: A System for Shedding Light on the Hidden History of Scientific Wikipedia Articles14 Jul 2026
- 2026Heterogeneous Element-Aware Cross-Version Differencing of Scientific Documents via Layout-Aware Alignment and Structure-Aware Reasoning8 May 2026
- 2026EarlySciRev: A Dataset of Early-Stage Scientific Revisions Extracted from LaTeX Writing Traces30 Mar 2026
- 2026Intention-Adaptive LLM Fine-Tuning for Text Revision Generation31 Jan 2026
- 2026Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time21 Jan 2026
- 2026Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review19 Jan 2026
- 2025Zero-shot reasoning for simulating scholarly peer-review2 Oct 2025
- 2025Efficient Layer-wise LLM Fine-tuning for Revision Intention Prediction30 Sep 2025
- 2025PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviews19 Feb 2025
- 2024Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions2 Oct 2024