# DIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07611 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07611/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 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 13 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [COCO-LM: Correcting and Contrasting Text Sequences for Language Model Pretraining](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.08473/) (2021)
- [MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04259/) (2024)
- [AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12708/) (2024)
- [OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11948/) (2024)
- [LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16253/) (2024)
- [ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08506/) (2025)
- [MARS: toward more efficient multi-agent collaboration for LLM reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20502/) (2025)
- [Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10886/) (2024)
- [On Pre-trained Language Models for Antibody](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.12112/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09723/) (2026)
- [Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27924/) (2026)
- [What Makes a Good AI Review? Concern-Level Diagnostics for AI Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19998/) (2026)
- [Tree-of-Concerns: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Debate for Unstated-Limitation Extraction in Scientific Critique](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20777/) (2026)
- [More Criticism Does Not Make a Better Review: EquiReview-R](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03943/) (2026)
- [ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09076/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Paper weakness identification using single-agent or multi-agent LLMs has attracted increasing attention, yet existing approaches exhibit key limitations. Many multi-agent systems simulate human roles at a surface level, missing the underlying criteria that lead experts to assess complementary intellectual aspects of a paper. Moreover, prior methods implicitly assume identified weaknesses are valid, ignoring reviewer bias, misunderstanding, and the critical role of author rebuttals in validating review quality. Finally, most systems output unranked weakness lists, rather than prioritizing the most consequential issues for users. In this work, we propose DIAGPaper, a novel multi-agent framework that addresses these challenges through three tightly integrated modules. The customizer module simulates human-defined review criteria and instantiates multiple reviewer agents with criterion-specific expertise. The rebuttal module introduces author agents that engage in structured debate with reviewer agents to validate and refine proposed weaknesses. The prioritizer module learns from large-scale human review practices to assess the severity of validated weaknesses and surfaces the top-K severest ones to users. Experiments on two benchmarks, AAAR and ReviewCritique, demonstrate that DIAGPaper substantially outperforms existing methods by producing more valid and more paper-specific weaknesses, while presenting them in a user-oriented, prioritized manner.