pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.11718 · v2 · pith:L3IWBGBFnew · submitted 2025-05-16 · 💻 cs.AI

REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords reviewreviewshumanrewardpeerreasoningremorhuman-aligned
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

AI-based peer review systems tend to produce shallow and overpraising suggestions compared to human feedback. Here, we evaluate how well a reasoning LLM trained with multi-objective reinforcement learning (REMOR) can overcome these limitations. We start by designing a multi-aspect reward function that aligns with human evaluation of reviews. The aspects are related to the review itself (e.g., criticisms, novelty) and the relationship between the review and the manuscript (i.e., relevance). First, we perform supervised fine-tuning of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B using LoRA on PeerRT, a new dataset of high-quality top AI conference reviews enriched with reasoning traces. We then apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to train two models: REMOR-H (with the human-aligned reward) and REMOR-U (with a uniform reward). Interestingly, the human-aligned reward penalizes aspects typically associated with strong reviews, leading REMOR-U to produce qualitatively more substantive feedback. Our results show that REMOR-U and REMOR-H achieve more than twice the average rewards of human reviews, non-reasoning state-of-the-art agentic multi-modal AI review systems, and general commercial LLM baselines. We found that while the best AI and human reviews are comparable in quality, REMOR avoids the long tail of low-quality human reviews. We discuss how reasoning is key to achieving these improvements and release the Human-aligned Peer Review Reward (HPRR) function, the Peer Review Reasoning-enriched Traces (PeerRT) dataset, and the REMOR models, which we believe can help spur progress in the area.

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 4 Pith papers

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

  1. LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLMs overrate weak papers, diverge from humans on criteria like clarity and reproducibility, write longer less diverse reviews, and remain vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that can boost low-scoring papers to ac...

  2. LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A survey synthesizing LLM methods for peer review critique generation and score prediction, including taxonomies, benchmark limitations, domain biases, and robustness risks such as prompt injection.

  3. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.

  4. PeeriScope: A Multi-Faceted Framework for Evaluating Peer Review Quality

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    PeeriScope is an open modular framework that integrates structured features, LLM rubric assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality for self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing.