{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2024:VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z","short_pith_number":"pith:VOWUOVH6","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"abad4754fe789b6b23a1980764529eee72886fb48c6a2f678f3aa888581e026b","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2409.16813","version":2},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"PeerArg: Argumentative Peer Review with LLMs","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Anna Rapberger, Francesca Toni, Purin Sukpanichnant","submitted_at":"2024-09-25T11:09:39Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review is an essential process to determine the quality of papers submitted to scientific conferences or journals. However, it is subjective and prone to biases. Several studies have been conducted to apply techniques from NLP to support peer review, but they are based on black-box techniques and their outputs are difficult to interpret and trust. In this paper, we propose a novel pipeline to support and understand the reviewing and decision-making processes of peer review: the PeerArg system combining LLMs with methods from knowledge representation. PeerArg takes in input a set of review"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2409.16813","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2024-09-25T11:09:39Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"4a88d9598507bddbf98d557f6154ee7b4cc86f24788acdcdabc7b70136b5dfd7","abstract_canon_sha256":"f4090fbf83856305fe2610afa07c887ee69ee5fc543bd4c5f14c8be6e18f4778"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934544Z","signature_b64":"+wQCDGewBWMsaWOXLosYtFyzTFfiXyqdEvsxHUY9XLduApj6Eob+OtO0AuVZSzIGghMVylD4zDwXzi5aNbmZDw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"abad4754fe789b6b23a1980764529eee72886fb48c6a2f678f3aa888581e026b","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934043Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934043Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"PeerArg: Argumentative Peer Review with LLMs","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Anna Rapberger, Francesca Toni, Purin Sukpanichnant","submitted_at":"2024-09-25T11:09:39Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review is an essential process to determine the quality of papers submitted to scientific conferences or journals. However, it is subjective and prone to biases. Several studies have been conducted to apply techniques from NLP to support peer review, but they are based on black-box techniques and their outputs are difficult to interpret and trust. In this paper, we propose a novel pipeline to support and understand the reviewing and decision-making processes of peer review: the PeerArg system combining LLMs with methods from knowledge representation. PeerArg takes in input a set of review"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2409.16813","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2409.16813/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2409.16813","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2409.16813v2","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2409.16813","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"VOWUOVH6PCNW","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5B","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"VOWUOVH6","created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":2,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.25057","citing_title":"LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges","ref_index":54,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.23593","citing_title":"When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?","ref_index":52,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z","json":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VOWUOVH6"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VOWUOVH6","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2409.16813&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/VOWUOVH6PCNWWI5BTADWIUU65Z/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T10:16:12.934099+00:00"}