RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 25 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2026.
Builds on
25 of 38 references.
References · 25
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 755
- 2024MinerU: An Open-Source Solution for Precise Document Content Extractioncited by 255
- 2024CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Reviewcited by 142
- 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 135
- 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 118
- 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Processcited by 97
- 2024AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agentscited by 92
- 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
- 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
13 more
- 2024Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactionscited by 43
- 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
- 2021DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussionscited by 35
- 2024Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistancecited by 33
- 2022MOPRD: A multidisciplinary open peer review datasetcited by 32
- 2025Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviewscited by 23
- 2025Re2: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussionscited by 19
- 2025Can LLMs Identify Critical Limitations within Scientific Research? A Systematic Evaluation on AI Research Paperscited by 19
- 2023Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttalscited by 18
- 2025SciArena: An Open Evaluation Platform for Non-Verifiable Scientific Literature-Grounded Taskscited by 17
- 2024LimGen: Probing the LLMs for Generating Suggestive Limitations of Research Paperscited by 16
- 2025The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authorscited by 16
- 2026DIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoningcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Measuring the Gap Between Human and LLM Research Ideascited by 7
- 2026Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Futurecited by 6
- 2026What Makes a Good AI Review? Concern-Level Diagnostics for AI Peer Reviewcited by 2
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
- 2026ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generationcited by 0
- 2026ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation8 Sep 2026
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing7 Sep 2026
- 2026Measuring the Gap Between Human and LLM Research Ideas1 Jul 2026
- 2026Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future30 Apr 2026
- 2026What Makes a Good AI Review? Concern-Level Diagnostics for AI Peer Review21 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Defend: Automated Rebuttals for Peer Review with Minimal Author Guidance
- 2026DRPG (Decompose, Retrieve, Plan, Generate): An Agentic Framework for Academic Rebuttal
- 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation
- 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
- 2025REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning
- 2026REM-CTX: Automated Peer Review via Reinforcement Learning with Auxiliary Context
- 2026GoodPoint: Learning Constructive Scientific Paper Feedback from Author Responses
- 2025ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL