# Automatic Paper Reviewing with Heterogeneous Graph Reasoning over LLM-Simulated Reviewer-Author Debates

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08317 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08317/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 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 6 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08569/) (2025)
- [Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05688/) (2024)
- [Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.06398/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18661/) (2026)
- [RubricReviewer: From Direct Critique to Objective and Comprehensive Rubric-Driven Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00005/) (2026)
- [PatRe: A Full-Stage Office Action and Rebuttal Generation Benchmark for Patent Examination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.03571/) (2026)
- [PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16995/) (2026)
- [Breaking the Illusion of Review Reliability under Static Evaluation: SCOPE Fuzzing for LLM-based Scientific Reviewers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37097/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing paper review methods often rely on superficial manuscript features or directly on large language models (LLMs), which are prone to hallucinations, biased scoring, and limited reasoning capabilities. Moreover, these methods often fail to capture the complex argumentative reasoning and negotiation dynamics inherent in reviewer-author interactions. To address these limitations, we propose ReViewGraph (Reviewer-Author Debates Graph Reasoner), a novel framework that performs heterogeneous graph reasoning over LLM-simulated multi-round reviewer-author debates. In our approach, reviewer-author exchanges are simulated through LLM-based multi-agent collaboration. Diverse opinion relations (e.g., acceptance, rejection, clarification, and compromise) are then explicitly extracted and encoded as typed edges within a heterogeneous interaction graph. By applying graph neural networks to reason over these structured debate graphs, ReViewGraph captures fine-grained argumentative dynamics and enables more informed review decisions. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate that ReViewGraph outperforms strong baselines with an average relative improvement of 15.73%, underscoring the value of modeling detailed reviewer-author debate structures.