mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR

arXiv 2602.15849 ↗First posted 23 Jan 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2026.

Builds on

17 of 59 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
  2. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
  3. 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,722
  4. 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 883
  5. 2025SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-trainingcited by 655
  6. 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 484
  7. 2021A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Paperscited by 475
  8. 2023MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoningcited by 195
  9. 2024Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviewscited by 160
  10. 2025olmOCR: Unlocking Trillions of Tokens in PDFs with Vision Language Modelscited by 120
  11. 2024MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 98
  12. 2024OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviewscited by 63
5 more
  1. 2025Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025cited by 40
  2. 2024Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistancecited by 33
  3. 2025PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviewscited by 21
  4. 2024SciDQA: A Deep Reading Comprehension Dataset over Scientific Paperscited by 15
  5. 2024cPAPERS: A Dataset of Situated and Multimodal Interactive Conversations in Scientific Paperscited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning
  2. 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
  3. 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation
  4. 2025ResearchQA: Evaluating Scholarly Question Answering at Scale Across 75 Fields with Survey-Mined Questions and Rubrics
  5. 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
  6. 2026RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation
  7. 2026PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers
  8. 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process