# Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23233 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23233/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 43 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.14062/) (2020)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04023/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13534/) (2023)
- [Unsupervised Quality Estimation for Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.10608/) (2020)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14552/) (2023)
- [CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00816/) (2024)
- [ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00622/) (2023)
- [DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08569/) (2025)
- [OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11948/) (2024)
- [Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10326/) (2025)
- [AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01903/) (2025)
- [ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.06119/) (2020)
- [Conformal Prediction for Deep Classifier via Label Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06430/) (2023)
- [Conformal Prediction for Natural Language Processing: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01976/) (2024)
- [Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01708/) (2024)
- [Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05688/) (2024)
- [AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10365/) (2024)
- [Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.10104/) (2019)
- [Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20477/) (2024)
- [ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08506/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic review generation is a promising direction for accelerating scientific progress. While most work adopts an end-to-end setup, its fully automated nature makes it less suitable for settings that demand accountability. To better balance automation and accountability, we formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s). We model it as a structured generate-check-refine process and conduct a user study to collect human-model interaction data. We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation. We develop methods to simulate the process for large-scale evaluation, and show that conformal prediction is well suited to balancing candidate set size and target coverage. Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.