arxiv: 2605.10171 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

When Reviews Disagree: Fine-Grained Contradiction Analysis in Scientific Peer Reviews

Sandeep Kumar , Yash Kamdar , Abid Hossain , Bharti Kumari , Tanik Saikh , Asif Ekbal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords peer reviewcontradiction detectionmulti-agent systemsevidence extractionintensity scoringRevCI benchmarkreviewer disagreement

0 comments

The pith

A multi-agent AI framework identifies specific evidence spans where peer reviews contradict and assigns graded intensity scores to those disagreements.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to improve how disagreements among scientific peer reviewers are understood by shifting from binary yes-no detection on isolated sentences to a detailed breakdown that locates exact evidence in full reviews and measures the strength of each conflict. This matters because large conferences produce too many reviews for area chairs to manually parse conflicts without missing important details or overreacting to minor ones. The work introduces RevCI, a dataset of review pairs annotated by experts for both evidence locations and intensity levels, along with IMPACT, a multi-agent system that extracts aspect-specific evidence, reasons deliberatively, and adjudicates the final result. A smaller distilled model called TIDE is also created to run the same task in one pass at lower cost. Experiments demonstrate that IMPACT exceeds single-agent and generic multi-agent methods on evidence finding and intensity matching, while TIDE remains close in accuracy but uses far fewer resources.

Core claim

Reviewer contradictions can be analyzed in fine detail by identifying specific evidence spans within full reviews and assigning graded intensity scores for the level of disagreement. This is supported by the RevCI benchmark dataset with expert annotations and by IMPACT, a multi-agent framework that uses aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication, which outperforms single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines in evidence identification and intensity agreement, with its distilled version TIDE achieving similar results at lower cost.

What carries the argument

IMPACT, the structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication to model reviewer contradictions and their intensity.

If this is right

Area chairs gain a concrete way to locate and weigh specific points of reviewer conflict rather than treating all disagreements as equivalent.
Graded intensity scores allow conferences to prioritize severe evaluative conflicts over minor ones during decision-making.
The distilled TIDE model makes the approach practical for large-scale use by reducing inference cost while retaining most of the accuracy.
RevCI becomes a reusable testbed that future systems can use to measure progress on fine-grained review analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same evidence-and-intensity approach could transfer to other settings with expert text disagreements, such as grant panel comments or clinical case discussions.
Review platforms could embed this type of analysis to automatically surface high-intensity conflicts for extra human attention.
Identified evidence spans might later support generating targeted author responses or reviewer training materials.

Load-bearing premise

That the expert annotations in RevCI provide a stable ground truth for contradiction evidence and intensity that generalizes beyond the sampled reviews and annotators.

What would settle it

A follow-up study in which new experts re-annotate the same review pairs and produce substantially different evidence spans or intensity scores, or in which IMPACT loses its performance edge on a fresh collection of reviews.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10171 by Abid Hossain, Asif Ekbal, Bharti Kumari, Sandeep Kumar, Tanik Saikh, Yash Kamdar.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overview of IMPACT, an Intensity-based Multi-Agent Contradiction estimation framework. The framework integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction with structured multi-agent disagreement to estimate contradiction intensity. 4.3 IMPACT: Intensity-based Multi-Agent Contradiction Estimation We propose IMPACT (Intensity-based Multi-Agent Contradiction estimation), a multi-agent framework for estimating c… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The figure shows the trends of the intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Percentage distribution of contradictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Percentage distribution of contradiction inten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Aspect-wise percentage distribution of con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Intensity-wise percentage distribution of con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Scientific peer reviews frequently contain conflicting expert judgments, and the increasing scale of conference submissions makes it challenging for Area Chairs and editors to reliably identify and interpret such disagreements. Existing approaches typically frame reviewer disagreement as binary contradiction detection over isolated sentence pairs, abstracting away the review-level context and obscuring differences in the severity of evaluative conflict. In this work, we introduce a fine-grained formulation of reviewer contradiction analysis that operates over full peer reviews by explicitly identifying contradiction evidence spans and assigning graded disagreement intensity scores. To support this task, we present RevCI, an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels. We further propose IMPACT, a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication to model reviewer contradictions and their intensity. To support efficient deployment, we distill IMPACT into TIDE, a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass. Experimental results show that IMPACT substantially outperforms strong single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines in both evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE achieves competitive performance at significantly lower inference cost.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a practical fine-grained take on reviewer disagreements by extracting evidence spans and scoring intensity over full reviews, with a new benchmark and a distilled small model that could help conference organizers.

read the letter

The main thing here is the shift from binary sentence-pair contradiction detection to something that works on complete reviews: pulling out specific evidence spans and assigning graded intensity scores. They release RevCI as an expert-annotated set of review pairs and build IMPACT, a multi-agent setup that conditions on aspects, does deliberative reasoning, and adjudicates before distilling the whole thing into TIDE for cheap single-pass inference. That combination looks new relative to the binary baselines cited in the abstract, and the practical framing around area-chair pain points is clear. The experiments report that IMPACT beats single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines on both evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE stays close enough at lower cost. That part is useful if you need something deployable at scale. The soft spot is the ground truth. Fine-grained span labeling and intensity grading are subjective, so the reported gains only matter if RevCI annotations are stable. The abstract gives no numbers on dataset size, inter-annotator agreement, or how they handled adjudication, which leaves open the possibility that measured improvements partly track annotation quirks rather than model strength. If the full paper shows solid IAA and clear controls, that concern shrinks; otherwise the central claims rest on thinner evidence than they should. This is aimed at NLP people working on review analysis or meta-science tools, and conference organizers who want automated help with conflicting reviews. A reader already building summarization or decision-support systems for submissions would get concrete value from TIDE and the task formulation. It deserves a serious referee because the motivation is real, the architecture is described in enough detail to evaluate, and the efficiency angle is worth checking even if the benchmark needs more scrutiny on reliability.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a fine-grained formulation of reviewer contradiction analysis that identifies evidence spans and assigns graded intensity scores over full peer reviews. It presents the RevCI expert-annotated benchmark of review pairs, proposes the IMPACT structured multi-agent framework integrating aspect-conditioned extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication, and distills it into the efficient TIDE small language model. Experiments claim that IMPACT substantially outperforms single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines on evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE achieves competitive results at lower inference cost.

Significance. If the empirical results hold under rigorous validation, the work has clear practical significance for conference organizers and editors by providing tools to surface and interpret disagreements at a level finer than binary detection. The creation of RevCI as a new benchmark and the structured IMPACT framework (with its efficient TIDE distillation) are concrete contributions that could support downstream applications in peer-review assistance. The emphasis on graded intensity and full-review context moves beyond prior sentence-pair approaches.

major comments (2)

[RevCI benchmark section] RevCI benchmark section: the central claim of IMPACT's superiority on evidence identification and intensity agreement rests on RevCI labels serving as stable ground truth, yet no inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported for span identification or graded intensity. Fine-grained span and intensity annotation is inherently subjective; without IAA (or adjudication details), measured gains could reflect annotator idiosyncrasies rather than model capability.
[Experimental results section] Experimental results section: the abstract and evaluation lack reported dataset size, statistical significance tests for the reported outperformance, and ablation controls isolating the contributions of aspect conditioning, deliberation, and adjudication in IMPACT. These omissions make it difficult to assess whether the gains are robust or sensitive to post-hoc choices and baseline weaknesses.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: quantitative details such as the number of review pairs in RevCI and the magnitude of improvements (e.g., exact F1 or agreement deltas) would strengthen the summary of results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on benchmark reliability and experimental reporting. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [RevCI benchmark section] the central claim of IMPACT's superiority on evidence identification and intensity agreement rests on RevCI labels serving as stable ground truth, yet no inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported for span identification or graded intensity. Fine-grained span and intensity annotation is inherently subjective; without IAA (or adjudication details), measured gains could reflect annotator idiosyncrasies rather than model capability.

Authors: We agree that inter-annotator agreement (IAA) metrics are essential to substantiate the stability of RevCI as ground truth. The annotations were produced by domain experts following detailed guidelines, with an adjudication step to resolve conflicts, but IAA statistics (such as span overlap F1 and weighted kappa for intensity) were not computed or reported in the initial submission. We will add these metrics, along with expanded details on the annotation protocol and adjudication process, to the revised benchmark section. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental results section] the abstract and evaluation lack reported dataset size, statistical significance tests for the reported outperformance, and ablation controls isolating the contributions of aspect conditioning, deliberation, and adjudication in IMPACT. These omissions make it difficult to assess whether the gains are robust or sensitive to post-hoc choices and baseline weaknesses.

Authors: The RevCI dataset size is described in the benchmark construction section; we will also state it explicitly in the abstract and results tables for clarity. We acknowledge the absence of statistical significance testing and component ablations. In the revision we will add appropriate tests (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests) and ablation experiments that isolate aspect conditioning, deliberation, and adjudication to demonstrate their individual contributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical evaluation on newly introduced benchmark

full rationale

The paper introduces RevCI as an expert-annotated benchmark and IMPACT as a multi-agent framework, then reports experimental comparisons to baselines on evidence identification and intensity agreement. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation of the central claims. The results are presented as direct empirical outcomes rather than reductions to prior inputs by construction. This is the expected non-circular outcome for an applied NLP paper centered on new data and model evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 3 invented entities

The work rests on the assumption that expert-annotated contradiction evidence and intensity labels form a reliable, generalizable benchmark. No free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented physical entities are introduced; the new entities are the dataset RevCI and the systems IMPACT/TIDE.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Expert annotations provide stable ground truth for contradiction evidence and intensity.
Invoked implicitly when using RevCI as the evaluation target.

invented entities (3)

RevCI benchmark no independent evidence
purpose: Expert-annotated dataset of peer-review pairs with evidence spans and graded intensity labels.
New resource created to support the fine-grained task.
IMPACT framework no independent evidence
purpose: Multi-agent system for aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication.
Proposed architecture to solve the task.
TIDE model no independent evidence
purpose: Distilled small language model for single-pass prediction of evidence and intensity.
Efficiency-oriented compression of IMPACT.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1371 out tokens · 21527 ms · 2026-05-12T04:04:55.889346+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

[1]

Lutz Bornmann , title =. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. , volume =. 2011 , url =. doi:10.1002/ARIS.2011.1440450112 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 2011
[3]

The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

Wang, Ke and Wan, Xiaojun , title =. The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2018 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3209978.3210056 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210056 2018
[4]

Wicherts

J.M. Wicherts. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLOS ONE. 2016. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147913

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 2016
[5]

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency

Timothy Parker and Simon Griffith and Judith Bronstein and Fiona Fidler and Susan Foster and Hannah Fraser and Wolfgang Forstmeier and Jessica Gurevitch and Julia Koricheva and Ralf Seppelt and Morgan Tingley and Shinichi Nakagawa. Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2018. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0545-z 2018
[6]

Shah and Aarti Singh and Hal Daum

Ivan Stelmakh and Nihar B. Shah and Aarti Singh and Hal Daum. Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer Review , journal =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.1145/3449149 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3449149 2021
[7]

Jill Freyne and Lorcan Coyle and Barry Smyth and Padraig Cunningham , title =. Commun. 2010 , url =. doi:10.1145/1839676.1839701 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/1839676.1839701 2010
[8]

Brezis and Aliaksandr Birukou , title =

Elise S. Brezis and Aliaksandr Birukou , title =. Scientometrics , volume =. 2020 , url =. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1 2020
[9]

John Langford and Mark Guzdial , title =. Commun. 2015 , url =. doi:10.1145/2732417 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/2732417 2015
[10]

What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP? , booktitle =

Anna Rogers and Isabelle Augenstein , editor =. What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP? , booktitle =. 2020 , url =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.112 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.112 2020
[11]

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide , volume =

Kelly, Jacalyn and Sadeghieh, Tara and Adeli, Khosrow , year =. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide , volume =

work page
[12]

and Glisson, Scott and Gallo, Stephen and Thompson, Lisa , title = "

Gropp, Robert E. and Glisson, Scott and Gallo, Stephen and Thompson, Lisa , title = ". BioScience , volume =. 2017 , month =. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix034 , url =

work page doi:10.1093/biosci/bix034 2017
[13]

Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.0

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.0 2025
[14]

and Zou, James Y

Liang, Weixin and Izzo, Zachary and Zhang, Yaohui and Lepp, Haley and Cao, Hancheng and Zhao, Xuandong and Chen, Lingjiao and Ye, Haotian and Liu, Sheng and Huang, Zhi and McFarland, Daniel A. and Zou, James Y. , title =. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , articleno =. 2024 , publisher =

work page 2024
[15]

Journal of Indonesian Management , author=

Challenges in the Peer-review process , volume=. Journal of Indonesian Management , author=. 2025 , month=. doi:10.53697/jim.v5i1.2570 , abstractNote=

work page doi:10.53697/jim.v5i1.2570 2025
[17]

Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4 , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 , year=

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[18]

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , volume=

Gpt-4 passes the bar exam , author=. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

work page 2024
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.00884 , year=

Towards Active Synthetic Data Generation for Finetuning Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.00884 , year=

work page arXiv
[20]

Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models

Alpaca: A strong, replicable instruction-following model , author=. Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models. https://crfm. stanford. edu/2023/03/13/alpaca. html , volume=

work page 2023
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14830 , year=

Orca-math: Unlocking the potential of slms in grade school math , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14830 , year=

work page arXiv
[22]

, author=

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. , author=. ICLR , volume=

work page
[23]

Proceedings of acl-08: Hlt , pages=

Finding contradictions in text , author=. Proceedings of acl-08: Hlt , pages=

work page
[24]

Biometrika , volume=

A new measure of rank correlation , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 1938 , publisher=

work page 1938
[25]

International Journal of Epidemiology , volume =

Spearman, C , title =. International Journal of Epidemiology , volume =. 2010 , month =. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq191 , url =

work page doi:10.1093/ije/dyq191 2010
[26]

Educational and psychological measurement , volume=

A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales , author=. Educational and psychological measurement , volume=. 1960 , publisher=

work page 1960
[27]

CoRR , volume =

Weizhe Yuan and Pengfei Liu and Graham Neubig , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2021 , url =

work page 2021
[28]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

work page
[29]

Nature Methods , volume =

SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , author =. Nature Methods , volume =. 2020 , doi =

work page 2020
[30]

Tenenbaum and Igor Mordatch , title =

Yilun Du and Shuang Li and Antonio Torralba and Joshua B. Tenenbaum and Igor Mordatch , title =. Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning,. 2024 , url =

work page 2024
[32]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

work page
[33]

Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics,

Alex Kim and Keonwoo Kim and Sangwon Yoon , editor =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics,. 2024 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2024.FINDINGS-ACL.112 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.112 2024
[34]

URL https://doi.org/10

Liang, Tian and He, Zhiwei and Jiao, Wenxiang and Wang, Xing and Wang, Yan and Wang, Rui and Yang, Yujiu and Shi, Shuming and Tu, Zhaopeng. Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992 2024
[35]

ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate

Chateval: Towards better llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201 , year=

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[36]

C ourt E val: A Courtroom-Based Multi-Agent Evaluation Framework

Kumar, Sandeep and Nargund, Abhijit A and Sridhar, Vivek. C ourt E val: A Courtroom-Based Multi-Agent Evaluation Framework. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1327

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1327 2025
[37]

When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews

Kumar, Sandeep and Ghosal, Tirthankar and Ekbal, Asif. When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038 2023
[38]

GPT-4 Technical Report

OpenAI , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774 , eprinttype =. 2303.08774 , timestamp =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 2023
[39]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12626 , year=

SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12626 , year=

work page arXiv 2007
[40]

G -Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human Alignment

Liu, Yang and Iter, Dan and Xu, Yichong and Wang, Shuohang and Xu, Ruochen and Zhu, Chenguang. G -Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human Alignment. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153 2023
[41]

GPTEval:

Rui Mao and Guanyi Chen and Xulang Zhang and Frank Guerin and Erik Cambria , editor =. GPTEval:. Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation,. 2024 , url =

work page 2024
[42]

Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews

Lu, Sheng and Kuznetsov, Ilia and Gurevych, Iryna. Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.326

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.326 2025
[43]

PloS one , volume=

The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: a utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

work page 2010
[44]

A Dataset of Peer Reviews ( P eer R ead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications

Kang, Dongyeop and Ammar, Waleed and Dalvi, Bhavana and van Zuylen, Madeleine and Kohlmeier, Sebastian and Hovy, Eduard and Schwartz, Roy. A Dataset of Peer Reviews ( P eer R ead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Te...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1149 2018
[45]

Shah and Aarti Singh , editor =

Ivan Stelmakh and Nihar B. Shah and Aarti Singh , editor =. On Testing for Biases in Peer Review , booktitle =. 2019 , url =

work page 2019
[46]

Shah and Behzad Tabibian and Krikamol Muandet and Isabelle Guyon and Ulrike von Luxburg , title =

Nihar B. Shah and Behzad Tabibian and Krikamol Muandet and Isabelle Guyon and Ulrike von Luxburg , title =. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , volume =. 2018 , url =

work page 2018
[47]

and Angeli, Gabor and Potts, Christopher and Manning, Christopher D

Samuel R. Bowman and Gabor Angeli and Christopher Potts and Christopher D. Manning , editor =. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference , booktitle =. 2015 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/D15-1075 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 2015
[48]

A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference

Adina Williams and Nikita Nangia and Samuel R. Bowman , editor =. A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference , booktitle =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/N18-1101 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1101 2018
[49]

BERT : Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

Jacob Devlin and Ming. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies,. 2019 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/N19-1423 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019
[50]

RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach

Yinhan Liu and Myle Ott and Naman Goyal and Jingfei Du and Mandar Joshi and Danqi Chen and Omer Levy and Mike Lewis and Luke Zettlemoyer and Veselin Stoyanov , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2019 , url =. 1907.11692 , timestamp =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[51]

Adversarial NLI : A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding

Yixin Nie and Adina Williams and Emily Dinan and Mohit Bansal and Jason Weston and Douwe Kiela , editor =. Adversarial. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,. 2020 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2020.ACL-MAIN.441 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.441 2020
[52]

Don`t Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Tasks

Suchin Gururangan and Ana Marasovic and Swabha Swayamdipta and Kyle Lo and Iz Beltagy and Doug Downey and Noah A. Smith , editor =. Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Tasks , booktitle =. 2020 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2020.ACL-MAIN.740 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.740 2020
[53]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04040 , year=

A survey on large language models with some insights on their capabilities and limitations , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04040 , year=

work page arXiv
[54]

Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=

A survey on large language model based autonomous agents , author=. Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

work page 2024
[55]

Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 , year =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[56]

2024 , howpublished =

work page 2024
[57]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models

The Llama 3 Herd of Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783 , note =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783
[58]

Qwen3 Technical Report

Qwen3 Technical Report , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[59]

GPT-4 Technical Report

GPT-4 Technical Report , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[60]

Smith, and Matt Gardner

Pradeep Dasigi and Kyle Lo and Iz Beltagy and Arman Cohan and Noah A. Smith and Matt Gardner , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2021 , url =. 2105.03011 , timestamp =

work page arXiv 2021