The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2010.06119 · v3 · pith:XR73YEJB · submitted 2020-10-13 · cs.CL · cs.AI

ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:XR73YEJBrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords reviewreviewrobotcommentsevidencehumanknowledgescoreconstructive
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

To assist human review process, we build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. A good review needs to be knowledgeable, namely that the comments should be constructive and informative to help improve the paper; and explainable by providing detailed evidence. ReviewRobot achieves these goals via three steps: (1) We perform domain-specific Information Extraction to construct a knowledge graph (KG) from the target paper under review, a related work KG from the papers cited by the target paper, and a background KG from a large collection of previous papers in the domain. (2) By comparing these three KGs, we predict a review score and detailed structured knowledge as evidence for each review category. (3) We carefully select and generalize human review sentences into templates, and apply these templates to transform the review scores and evidence into natural language comments. Experimental results show that our review score predictor reaches 71.4%-100% accuracy. Human assessment by domain experts shows that 41.7%-70.5% of the comments generated by ReviewRobot are valid and constructive, and better than human-written ones for 20% of the time. Thus, ReviewRobot can serve as an assistant for paper reviewers, program chairs and authors.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. PeerPrism: Peer Evaluation Expertise vs Review-writing AI

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PeerPrism benchmark demonstrates that state-of-the-art LLM detectors conflate surface text style with intellectual contribution and fail on hybrid human-AI peer reviews.