# ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09076 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09076/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [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)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00816/) (2024)
- [Checklists Are Better Than Reward Models For Aligning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18624/) (2025)
- [Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01268/) (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)
- [OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11948/) (2024)
- [ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08506/) (2025)
- [Re2: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.07920/) (2025)
- [SciArena: An Open Evaluation Platform for Non-Verifiable Scientific Literature-Grounded Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01001/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Identify Critical Limitations within Scientific Research? A Systematic Evaluation on AI Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02694/) (2025)
- [When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09912/) (2025)
- [AbGen: Evaluating Large Language Models in Ablation Study Design and Evaluation for Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.13300/) (2025)
- [Examining Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges in Non-Verifiable LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12246/) (2026)
- [Paper2Rebuttal: A Multi-Agent Framework for Transparent Author Response Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14171/) (2026)
- [DIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07611/) (2026)
- [RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09723/) (2026)
- [Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27924/) (2026)
- [DRPG (Decompose, Retrieve, Plan, Generate): An Agentic Framework for Academic Rebuttal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18081/) (2026)
- [Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11173/) (2026)
- [IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15849/) (2026)
- [References Improve LLM Alignment in Non-Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16802/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.