Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis

LLMs have recently achieved substantial progress in accommodating lengthy contexts. For example, LongLLaMA Tworkowski et al. (2024) and LongLoRA Chen et al. (2023b) support long contexts processing by modifying the attention mechanism. There are also some positional encoding methods proposed, including ALiBi Press et al. (2021), xPOS Sun et al. (2022) and RoPE variants Chen et al. (2023a); Xiong et al. (2023).

Assessing the capability of LLMs in handling long contexts has also attracted significant attention. The needle-in-a-Haystack (NIAH) test Kamradt (2023) has been widely adopted to evaluate long-context LLMs. Further, RULER Hsieh et al. (2024) extends the vanilla NIAH test to provide a more thorough assessment. Based on the RULER evaluation results, we select Mistral-7B Jiang et al. (2023) as the base model in our paper. Mistral-7B is a compact LLM that has been shown to handle at least 16K tokens, sufficient to meet the input requirements of most academic papers.

Automating scientific reviewing began its investigation in the era of small language models. The early work Zhang et al. (2022) utilizes RoBERTa Liu et al. (2019) to assess the textual fluency of papers and fairness disparity in peer review. In peer grading, Morris et al. (2023) fine-tune distilBERT Sanh et al. (2019) using course grading data from massive open online courses to examine the reliability of peer grading scores. However, due to the restricted capability of language models in handling lengthy contexts, automating scientific reviewing of a full paper has not been studied before the advent of LLMs.

Recently, since LLMs exhibit advancements in various NLP tasks, some studies are exploring the capabilities of LLMs in automated paper reviewing. For example, Liu and Shah (2023) and Liang et al. (2023) customize prompts to guide GPT-4 in generating scientific feedbacks. Wei et al. (2023) conduct continuous training of LLaMA2-70B Touvron et al. (2023) on academic data, resulting in an academically enhanced model AcademicGPT. Further, Gao et al. (2024) collect a large-scale peer review dataset, and propose a two-stage review generation framework REVIEWER2 with question-guided prompts.

To explore the potential of LLMs in automated scientific reviewing, a high-quality labeled dataset is generally needed for supervised fine-tuning (SFT). This process feeds LLMs with more peer reviews, thereby enhancing the quality of its generated ones. However, in the peer review datasets, each paper is often associated with multiple peer reviews, with each review offering a limited perspective based on the reviewer’s field and expertise. On the other hand, the review formats and criteria could vary across different academic venues, and directly performing SFT on existing peer review datasets can lead to inconsistencies. Therefore, we first have to standardize reviews in a unified format and criterion with comprehensive contents before SFT. For each paper, we integrate all the reviews into one, which can eliminate redundancy and error in multiple reviews. The integrated review is expected to focus on the major advantages and disadvantages of the paper, thereby enhancing its quality.

To perform data standardization, we attempt several representative open-source and closed-source models, such as Mistral-7B, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. We empirically observe that Mistral-7B and GPT-3.5 tend to simply concatenate the original contents. In contrast, GPT-4 leads them by integrating reviews in an unified format and providing detailed evidence for each argument (The comparative examples are given in Figure 6 of Appendix A.1). However, the API for GPT-4 is costly and inflexible. Inspired by Alpaca Taori et al. (2023), we distill GPT-4’s excellent data standardization capabilities into open-source models.

Specifically, we first randomly select 20% of the papers from the training set along with their reviews $\{[r^{\text{origin}}_{i1},r^{\text{origin}}_{i2},\dots,r^{\text{origin}}_{im}]\}^{n}_{i=1}$, where $n$ is the number of selected papers and $m$ is the number of reviews corresponding to paper $p_{i}$. Next, for each paper $p_{i}$, we input all its reviews along with the customized instruction $inst_{s}$ into GPT-4, which in turn yields the standardized review $r^{\text{GPT-4}}_{i}$. In this way, we can construct the instruction dataset for the data standardization model SEA-S that takes Mistral-7B as the base model. Formally, the triplet in the dataset is <$inst_{s},[r^{\text{origin}}_{i1},r^{\text{origin}}_{i2},\dots,r^{\text{origin}}_{im}],r^{\text{GPT-4}}_{i}$>, which is further served for SFT. After fine-tuning SEA-S, we feed all the reviews in the training set into SEA-S for data standardization, which outputs the integrated reviews $\{r^{\text{SEA-S}}_{i}\}^{N}_{i=1}$. Here, $N$ denotes the number of papers in the training set. In summary, SEA-S provides a novel paradigm for integrating peer review data in an unified format across various conferences.

In the Evaluation module, we aim to construct a talented LLM that can deeply understand papers and generate constructive reviews. Notably, since raw crawled papers are in PDF format, we first apply Nougat Blecher et al. (2023) as the parser, which is a model based on Visual Transformer and is specially designed for parsing academic documents. In particular, Nougat can parse formulas into LaTeX codes instead of corrupted text encoding, enabling LLMs to gain a deeper understanding of papers’ contents. Further, due to the long-text characteristic of papers, we choose the open-source model Mistral-7B as the backbone model, which has demonstrated its ability in effectively handling up to 16K tokens for the long-context benchmark RULER Hsieh et al. (2024).

Based on the outputs of the SEA-S model, we next construct the instruction dataset for the evaluation model SEA-E. Each triplet in the dataset is denoted as <$inst_{e},\hat{p}_{i},r^{\text{SEA-S}}_{i}$>, where $inst_{e}$ is the specially designed instruction for evaluation, $\hat{p}_{i}$ is the parsed paper, and $r^{\text{SEA-S}}_{i}$ is the standardized review. Note that $r^{\text{SEA-S}}_{i}$ contains solid evidence for each argument in the review. This endows SEA-E with the capability to generate comprehensive and constructive reviews after SFT.

Now, we step into the Analysis module, where a mismatch score is proposed to measure the consistency between papers and their generated reviews. Given a paper $p$ with $m$ raw reviews, let us denote its ground-truth paper ratings as $S_{p}=\{s_{pr_{1}},s_{pr_{2}},\dots,s_{pr_{m}}\}$ and confidence scores as $C_{p}=\{c_{pr_{1}},c_{pr_{2}},\dots,c_{pr_{m}}\}$, where each $s_{pr_{i}}$ and $c_{pr_{i}}$ indicate the rating and confidence score given by the $i$-th reviewer. We next use the confidence scores as weights and calculate the weighted average rating of paper $p$, which is further subtracted from the reviewer’s rating to serve as the ground truth mismatch score. Formally, we have:

From the equation, we see that, when a reviewer’s rating is greater than the weighted average, the review may tend to emphasize the paper’s strengths; otherwise, the review may be preferably critical of the paper. Generally, the greater the difference, the lower the review quality. When $y_{true}^{pr_{i}}=0$, we consider the review to be relatively neutral and consistent with the paper content. For example, when the review ratings of a paper are {2, 6, 6, 6} and all are given with full confidence, the quality of the review rated 2 is considered to be lower because it deviates significantly from the weighted average rating of 5.

To estimate the mismatch score, we train a lightweight regression model SEA-A. Specifically, each parsed paper $\hat{p}$ and its corresponding review $r$ generated from SEA-E form a pair <$\hat{p}$, $r$>, which serves as the input. We first utilize the pre-trained sentence representation model SFR-Embedding-Mistral Rui Meng (2024) that is designed for long contexts to transform the texts of papers and reviews into representations $h_{\hat{p}}$ and $h_{r}$, respectively. Then, we compute the query and key vectors for both the paper and the review separately:

Here, $W^{q}$ and $W^{k}$ are learnable weight matrices. Based on the query and key vectors, we calculate the estimated mismatch score ${y}_{pred}^{pr}$ by:

Finally, we use the mismatch score $y_{true}^{pr}$ as the ground truth and the Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss as the objective to train the regression model SEA-A. The smaller the absolute value of the mismatch score, the higher the consistency between the review and the paper.

After SEA-A is trained, we further introduce a self-correction strategy to analyze each review generated by SEA-E. When the estimated mismatch score $y_{pred}^{pr}$ is larger than a pre-set threshold $\theta$, we regenerate the review by adding the current mismatch score as additional prompt to ensure the consistency between the paper and the review.

We use BLEU Papineni et al. (2002), ROUGE (Recall), ROUGE (F1-score) Lin (2004), and BERTScore Zhang et al. (2019) as metrics to evaluate the quality of generated reviews across eight datasets. Specifically, BLEU and ROUGE measure the similarity between papers and reviews based on n-grams, while BERTScore focuses on semantic similarity in the embedding space. For the ROUGE metric, recall measures how comprehensively the generated reviews capture the key information from raw papers, while the F1 score assesses the balance between precision and recall in the generated contents. To measure the completeness and comprehensiveness of the generated reviews, we simply concatenate all the reviews of each paper to serve as a benchmark for evaluation. Moreover, we have also counted the average number of tokens in the generated reviews.

The results in Table 2 show that SEA outperforms other baseline models across all the testing scenarios, with particularly notable gains on the ROUGE (Recall) metric. This confirms that our proposed framework SEA is capable of generating comprehensive and constructive reviews. Further, SEA not only performs excellently on in-domain tasks but also shows strong performance on cross-domain datasets, demonstrating its robust generalizability. It is also worth noting that SEA-EA surpasses SEA-E in all cases, underscoring the effectiveness of the self-correction strategy in generating well-grounded reviews consistent with raw papers. However, for M-7B-R, we notice that randomly selecting a review as the output of SFT often leads to shorter texts. To some extent, the quality of a review is positively correlated with its length, which explains its poor performance. Although directly inferring with M-7B can generate longer text, it fails to align with human reviews, resulting in lower evaluation scores. For M-7B-3.5, its performance is poorer than SEA-E, which further indicates the effectiveness of SEA-S. Consequently, using high-quality standardized data generated by SEA-S can effectively improve the performance of SFT. In Appendix A.2 we give concrete examples of reviews generated by different models.

We show the standardized results on papers in the training set of NeurIPS-2023 and ICLR-2024 that have different rating criteria. In addition, reviews are organized in various formats.

To analyse the consistency between the reviews generated by different models and the corresponding papers, we input the reviews and their respective papers in the test set into the trained SEA-A model to calculate the average mismatch score for each model across different datasets. As illustrated in Figure 5, SEA-EA, due to its self-correction strategy, consistently outperforms others across all the datasets. Further, SEA-E is the runner-up method. This verifies that the reviews generated by both methods have a higher consistency with their corresponding papers. Mistral-7B, which has not undergone fine-tuning, fails to learn the correspondence between papers and reviews, resulting in higher mismatch scores. Although M-7B-R and M-7B-3.5 are fine-tuned, they are still worse than our methods. This can be explained by the insufficient model standardization capability.

To further study mismatch score, for each paper, we randomly select a review from other papers in the test set as the “negative” review. The negative review is expected to derive a larger mismatch score than the generated review, which is empirically observed from our results given in Appendix A.3. This again confirms that our regression model is capable of quantitatively assessing the consistency across reviews and papers.

We conduct a further quantitative analysis on the four scores in the generated reviews on two datasets with actual scores, NeurlPS-2023 and ICLR-2024. The four scores include “Soundness”, “Presentation”, and “Contribution”, which are integers from $[1,4]$, and “Rating”, which is an integer from $[1,10]$. The rating criterion is given in the instruction of SEA-E in Table 9. In practice, each paper has multiple reviews and each review has the above four scores. Therefore, given a paper, for each score, we use the “Confidence” score in each review as the weight and calculate the weighted average as the reference score.

To assess the discrepancy between the generated scores and the reference scores, we use the Mean Squared Error (MSE) metric. The lower the MSE value, the more accurate the generated results. In Table 3, the percentages in parentheses indicate the proportions of generated reviews with valid scores, while “N/A” denotes those with unsuccessful generations (e.g. text is generated instead of scores). It can be seen that our proposed method ensures the validity of the output format, whereas other models tend to generate content that does not comply with the instruction to varying degrees, especially M-7B that has not undergone SFT. The MSE metric shows that our proposed methods outperform the baseline models in practically all cases. Although SEA-E scores larger than M-7B-3.5 by 0.02 in the “Presentation” on ICLR-2024, SEA-E achieves 100% valid scores in generation, whereas M-7B-3.5 only reaches 86%. Additionally, SEA-EA demonstrates improvements over SEA-E in most cases, further validating that a self-correcting strategy allows for high consistency between generated results and human feedback on quantitative evaluation results.

In this part, we analyze “Decision” and “Reason” of the generated review, i.e., the final decision (accept or reject) of the paper and the corresponding reasons. Typically, the Area Chair (AC) gives the final decision and meta-reviews. We calculate the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of the generated results compared to the final decisions, and use BERTScore to measure the semantic similarity between the reasons and meta-reviews. The model M-7B-R randomly selects a review for SFT that does not include the decision or the meta reviews, hence we do not take it as baseline.

From Table 4, it can be seen that SEA-EA leads to the largest accuracy and BERTScore values, where the latter shows the model’s effectiveness in generating reasons semantically aligned with meta-reviews. Due to the acceptance rate of 95% in the NeurIPS-2023 test set (see Table 1), the overall results are large. For ICLR-2024, the accuracy of SEA-EA surpasses that of SEA-E over 4%, further indicating the effectiveness of the self-correction strategy. Additionally, we note that M-7B exhibits high recall about 97%, but poor precision, suggesting a tendency to cater to human preferences by accepting most papers. In contrast, our method performs better in both Precision and F1-score, which indicates that ours can identify papers of different quality more effectively. Overall, SEA aligns more closely with actual AC decisions and refrains from favoring decisions that lean towards acceptance.