# InternReviewer & InternAdvocate: Objective Reward and Evaluation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning in Peer Review and Rebuttal

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28612 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.28612/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 37 of its 89 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [SGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07104/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08066/) (2025)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [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)
- [MinerU2.5: A Decoupled Vision-Language Model for Efficient High-Resolution Document Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22186/) (2025)
- [MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04259/) (2024)
- [DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08569/) (2025)
- [AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12708/) (2024)
- [Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.00176/) (2021)
- [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)
- [GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05492/) (2023)
- [TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07642/) (2025)
- [OpenDataLab: Empowering General Artificial Intelligence with Open Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13773/) (2024)
- [What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06563/) (2024)
- [ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11736/) (2025)
- [Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17086/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Generating professional scholarly content, such as peer reviews and rebuttals, requires an intricate synergy between domain reasoning and factual grounding. This work presents a comprehensive framework for the development and evaluation of specialized scholarly agents, InternReviewer and InternAdvocate. We first establish a large-scale, high-quality scholarly dataset and integrate a high-efficiency arXiv retrieval tool to enable active evidence gathering. To optimize these agents, we implement an agentic Reinforcement Learning (RL) paradigm driven by a unified objective metric and reward system. This system avoids the biases of subjective model-based judging by employing multi-dimensional criteria, including reference-anchored semantic alignment, structural compliance, and a strict verification mechanism that cross-checks citations against real-time interaction logs to eliminate hallucinations. Experimental results demonstrate that agents trained within this closed-loop framework exhibit significant improvements in reasoning depth and citation accuracy.