mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

GoodPoint: Learning Constructive Scientific Paper Feedback from Author Responses

arXiv 2604.11924 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 4

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

While LLMs hold significant potential to transform scientific research, we advocate for their use to augment and empower researchers rather than to automate research without human oversight. To this end, we study constructive feedback generation, the task of producing targeted, actionable feedback that helps authors improve both their research and its presentation. In this work, we operationalize the effectiveness of feedback along two author-centric axes-validity and author action. We first curate GoodPoint-ICLR, a dataset of 19K ICLR papers with reviewer feedback annotated along both dimensions using author responses. Building on this, we introduce GoodPoint, a training recipe that leverages success signals from author responses through fine-tuning on valid and actionable feedback, together with preference optimization on both real and synthetic preference pairs. Our evaluation on a benchmark of 1.2K ICLR papers shows that a GoodPoint-trained Qwen3-8B improves the predicted success rate by 83.7% over the base model and sets a new state-of-the-art among LLMs of similar size in feedback matching on a golden human feedback set, even surpassing Gemini-3-flash in precision. We further validate these findings through an expert human study, demonstrating that GoodPoint consistently delivers higher practical value as perceived by authors.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 15 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

Builds on

15 of 25 references.

References · 15

  1. 2025Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistantscited by 425
  2. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  3. 2025Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmapcited by 128
  4. 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Processcited by 100
  5. 2024OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviewscited by 65
  6. 2025The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideascited by 62
  7. 2025AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Researchcited by 60
  8. 2024Autonomous LLM-driven research from data to human-verifiable research paperscited by 53
  9. 2024LLMs as Research Tools: A Large Scale Survey of Researchers' Usage and Perceptionscited by 47
  10. 2024Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysiscited by 33
  11. 2025The Delta Learning Hypothesis: Preference Tuning on Weak Data can Yield Strong Gainscited by 28
  12. 2025ALFA: Aligning LLMs to Ask Good Questions A Case Study in Clinical Reasoningcited by 25
3 more
  1. 2025Re2: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussionscited by 23
  2. 2025The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authorscited by 16
  3. 2025Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviewscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review
  2. 2025Graph-Guided Passage Retrieval for Author-Centric Structured Feedback
  3. 2025FRAME: Feedback-Refined Agent Methodology for Enhancing Medical Research Insights
  4. 2026RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation
  5. 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
  6. 2026From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent
  7. 2023Evoke: Evoking Critical Thinking Abilities in LLMs via Reviewer-Author Prompt Editing
  8. 2026ReviewGuard: Aligning LLM-Assisted Peer Review with Long-Term Scientific Impact