mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

arXiv 2505.11718 ↗First posted 16 May 2025cs.AIcited by 11

On the map: LLM reasoning → Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

AI-based peer review systems tend to produce shallow and overpraising suggestions compared to human feedback. Here, we evaluate how well a reasoning LLM trained with multi-objective reinforcement learning (REMOR) can overcome these limitations. We start by designing a multi-aspect reward function that aligns with human evaluation of reviews. The aspects are related to the review itself (e.g., criticisms, novelty) and the relationship between the review and the manuscript (i.e., relevance). First, we perform supervised fine-tuning of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B using LoRA on PeerRT, a new dataset of high-quality top AI conference reviews enriched with reasoning traces. We then apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to train two models: REMOR-H (with the human-aligned reward) and REMOR-U (with a uniform reward). Interestingly, the human-aligned reward penalizes aspects typically associated with strong reviews, leading REMOR-U to produce qualitatively more substantive feedback. Our results show that REMOR-U and REMOR-H achieve more than twice the average rewards of human reviews, non-reasoning state-of-the-art agentic multi-modal AI review systems, and general commercial LLM baselines. We found that while the best AI and human reviews are comparable in quality, REMOR avoids the long tail of low-quality human reviews. We discuss how reasoning is key to achieving these improvements and release the Human-aligned Peer Review Reward (HPRR) function, the Peer Review Reasoning-enriched Traces (PeerRT) dataset, and the REMOR models, which we believe can help spur progress in the area.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 25 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2025.

Builds on

25 of 54 references.

References · 25

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  4. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  5. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  6. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  7. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  8. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  9. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
  10. 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,464
  11. 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,341
  12. 2019ZeRO: Memory Optimizations Toward Training Trillion Parameter Modelscited by 1,301
13 more
  1. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
  2. 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 445
  3. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  4. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
  5. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 122
  6. 2024MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 104
  7. 2019Deep Reinforcement Learning for Multi-objective Optimizationcited by 90
  8. 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
  9. 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A surveycited by 61
  10. 2020ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesiscited by 54
  11. 2024Survey of different Large Language Model Architectures: Trends, Benchmarks, and Challengescited by 32
  12. 2025ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviewscited by 25
  13. 2021What Have We Learned from OpenReview?cited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 9.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL
  2. 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation
  3. 2026When AI Reviews Train AI Reviewers: Scientific-Judgment Collapse and Mitigation
  4. 2026RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation
  5. 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
  6. 2026ReviewGuard: Aligning LLM-Assisted Peer Review with Long-Term Scientific Impact
  7. 2026From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent
  8. 2024CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review