Code review is a crucial but often complex, subjective, and time-consuming activity in software development. Over the past decades, significant efforts have been made to automate this process. Early approaches focused on knowledge-based systems (KBS) that apply rule-based mechanisms to detect code issues, providing precise feedback but struggling with complex, context-dependent cases. More recent work has shifted toward fine-tuning pre-trained language models for code review, enabling broader issue coverage but often at the expense of precision. In this paper, we propose a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of KBS and learning-based systems (LBS) to generate high-quality, comprehensive code reviews. Our method integrates knowledge at three distinct stages of the language model pipeline: during data preparation (Data-Augmented Training, DAT), at inference (Retrieval-Augmented Generation, RAG), and after inference (Naive Concatenation of Outputs, NCO). We empirically evaluate our combination strategies against standalone KBS and LBS fine-tuned on a real-world dataset. Our results show that these hybrid strategies enhance the relevance, completeness, and overall quality of review comments, effectively bridging the gap between rule-based tools and deep learning models.
Literature research, vital for scientific work, faces the challenge of surging information volumes exceeding researchers' processing capabilities. We present an automated review generation method based on large language models (LLMs) to overcome efficiency bottlenecks and reduce cognitive load. Our statistically validated evaluation framework demonstrates that the generated reviews match or exceed manual quality, offering broad applicability across research fields without requiring users' domain knowledge. Applied to propane dehydrogenation (PDH) catalysts, our method swiftly analyzed 343 articles, averaging seconds per article per LLM account, producing comprehensive reviews spanning 35 topics, with extended analysis of 1041 articles providing insights into catalysts' properties. Through multi-layered quality control, we effectively mitigated LLMs' hallucinations, with expert verification confirming accuracy and citation integrity while demonstrating hallucination risks reduced to below 0.5\% with 95\% confidence. Released Windows application enables one-click review generation, enhancing research productivity and literature recommendation efficiency while setting the stage for broader scientific explorations.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.
Modern natural language generation systems with Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit the capability to generate a plausible summary of multiple documents; however, it is uncertain if they truly possess the capability of information consolidation to generate summaries, especially on documents with opinionated information. We focus on meta-review generation, a form of sentiment summarisation for the scientific domain. To make scientific sentiment summarization more grounded, we hypothesize that human meta-reviewers follow a three-layer framework of sentiment consolidation to write meta-reviews. Based on the framework, we propose novel prompting methods for LLMs to generate meta-reviews and evaluation metrics to assess the quality of generated meta-reviews. Our framework is validated empirically as we find that prompting LLMs based on the framework -- compared with prompting them with simple instructions -- generates better meta-reviews.
We study the ability of LLMs to generate feedback for scientific papers and develop MARG, a feedback generation approach using multiple LLM instances that engage in internal discussion. By distributing paper text across agents, MARG can consume the full text of papers beyond the input length limitations of the base LLM, and by specializing agents and incorporating sub-tasks tailored to different comment types (experiments, clarity, impact) it improves the helpfulness and specificity of feedback. In a user study, baseline methods using GPT-4 were rated as producing generic or very generic comments more than half the time, and only 1.7 comments per paper were rated as good overall in the best baseline. Our system substantially improves the ability of GPT-4 to generate specific and helpful feedback, reducing the rate of generic comments from 60% to 29% and generating 3.7 good comments per paper (a 2.2x improvement).
Automatic literature review generation is one of the most challenging tasks in natural language processing. Although large language models have tackled literature review generation, the absence of large-scale datasets has been a stumbling block to the progress. We release SciReviewGen, consisting of over 10,000 literature reviews and 690,000 papers cited in the reviews. Based on the dataset, we evaluate recent transformer-based summarization models on the literature review generation task, including Fusion-in-Decoder extended for literature review generation. Human evaluation results show that some machine-generated summaries are comparable to human-written reviews, while revealing the challenges of automatic literature review generation such as hallucinations and a lack of detailed information. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/tetsu9923/SciReviewGen.
Opinions in scientific research papers can be divergent, leading to controversies among reviewers. However, most existing datasets for opinion summarization are centered around product reviews and assume that the analyzed opinions are non-controversial, failing to account for the variability seen in other contexts such as academic papers, political debates, or social media discussions. To address this gap, we propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. To facilitate this task, we introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences. Furthermore, we propose the Checklist-guided Iterative Introspection approach, which breaks down scientific opinion summarization into several stages, iteratively refining the summary under the guidance of questions from a checklist. Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions and can be applied to other complex text generation using black-box LLMs.
We present PeerSum, a novel dataset for generating meta-reviews of scientific papers. The meta-reviews can be interpreted as abstractive summaries of reviews, multi-turn discussions and the paper abstract. These source documents have rich inter-document relationships with an explicit hierarchical conversational structure, cross-references and (occasionally) conflicting information. To introduce the structural inductive bias into pre-trained language models, we introduce Rammer ( Relationship-aware Multi-task Meta-review Generator), a model that uses sparse attention based on the conversational structure and a multi-task training objective that predicts metadata features (e.g., review ratings). Our experimental results show that Rammer outperforms other strong baseline models in terms of a suite of automatic evaluation metrics. Further analyses, however, reveal that RAMMER and other models struggle to handle conflicts in source documents of PeerSum, suggesting meta-review generation is a challenging task and a promising avenue for further research.
Scientific literature review generation aims to extract and organize important information from an abundant collection of reference papers and produces corresponding reviews while lacking a clear and logical hierarchy. We observe that a high-quality catalogue-guided generation process can effectively alleviate this problem. Therefore, we present an atomic and challenging task named Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review as the first step for review generation, which aims to produce a hierarchical catalogue of a review paper given various references. We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews Dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.Our extensive analyses verify the high quality of our dataset and the effectiveness of our evaluation metrics. We further benchmark diverse experiments on state-of-the-art summarization models like BART and large language models like ChatGPT to evaluate their capabilities. We further discuss potential directions for this task to motivate future research.
Double-blind peer review mechanism has become the skeleton of academic research across multiple disciplines including computer science, yet several studies have questioned the quality of peer reviews and raised concerns on potential biases in the process. In this paper, we conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs). We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date by aggregating data from OpenReview, Google Scholar, arXiv, and CSRanking, and extracting high-level features using language models. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige. We observe that the level of disparity differs and textual features are essential in reducing biases in the predictive modeling. We distill several insights from our analysis on study the peer review process with the help of large LMs. Our database also provides avenues for studying new natural language processing (NLP) methods that facilitate the understanding of the peer review mechanism. We study a concrete example towards automatic machine review systems and provide baseline models for the review generation and scoring tasks such that the database can be used as a benchmark.
For a long time, different recommendation tasks typically require designing task-specific architectures and training objectives. As a result, it is hard to transfer the learned knowledge and representations from one task to another, thus restricting the generalization ability of existing recommendation approaches, e.g., a sequential recommendation model can hardly be applied or transferred to a review generation method. To deal with such issues, considering that language can describe almost anything and language grounding is a powerful medium to represent various problems or tasks, we present a flexible and unified text-to-text paradigm called "Pretrain, Personalized Prompt, and Predict Paradigm" (P5) for recommendation, which unifies various recommendation tasks in a shared framework. In P5, all data such as user-item interactions, user descriptions, item metadata, and user reviews are converted to a common format -- natural language sequences. The rich information from natural language assists P5 to capture deeper semantics for personalization and recommendation. Specifically, P5 learns different tasks with the same language modeling objective during pretraining. Thus, it serves as the foundation model for various downstream recommendation tasks, allows easy integration with other modalities, and enables instruction-based recommendation based on prompts. P5 advances recommender systems from shallow model to deep model to big model, and will revolutionize the technical form of recommender systems towards universal recommendation engine. With adaptive personalized prompt for different users, P5 is able to make predictions in a zero-shot or few-shot manner and largely reduces the necessity for extensive fine-tuning. On several recommendation benchmarks, we conduct experiments to show the effectiveness of P5. We release the source code at https://github.com/jeykigung/P5.
The rapid development of science and technology has been accompanied by an exponential growth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. At the same time, the review of each paper is a laborious process that must be carried out by subject matter experts. Thus, providing high-quality reviews of this growing number of papers is a significant challenge. In this work, we ask the question "can we automate scientific reviewing?", discussing the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. Arguably the most difficult part of this is defining what a "good" review is in the first place, so we first discuss possible evaluation measures for such reviews. We then collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews, but the generated text can suffer from lower constructiveness for all aspects except the explanation of the core ideas of the papers, which are largely factually correct. We finally summarize eight challenges in the pursuit of a good review generation system together with potential solutions, which, hopefully, will inspire more future research on this subject. We make all code, and the dataset publicly available: https://github.com/neulab/ReviewAdvisor, as well as a ReviewAdvisor system: http://review.nlpedia.ai/.
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.
Personalized review generation (PRG) aims to automatically produce review text reflecting user preference, which is a challenging natural language generation task. Most of previous studies do not explicitly model factual description of products, tending to generate uninformative content. Moreover, they mainly focus on word-level generation, but cannot accurately reflect more abstractive user preference in multiple aspects. To address the above issues, we propose a novel knowledge-enhanced PRG model based on capsule graph neural network~(Caps-GNN). We first construct a heterogeneous knowledge graph (HKG) for utilizing rich item attributes. We adopt Caps-GNN to learn graph capsules for encoding underlying characteristics from the HKG. Our generation process contains two major steps, namely aspect sequence generation and sentence generation. First, based on graph capsules, we adaptively learn aspect capsules for inferring the aspect sequence. Then, conditioned on the inferred aspect label, we design a graph-based copy mechanism to generate sentences by incorporating related entities or words from HKG. To our knowledge, we are the first to utilize knowledge graph for the PRG task. The incorporated KG information is able to enhance user preference at both aspect and word levels. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of our model on the PRG task.
Opinion summarization is the task of automatically creating summaries that reflect subjective information expressed in multiple documents, such as product reviews. While the majority of previous work has focused on the extractive setting, i.e., selecting fragments from input reviews to produce a summary, we let the model generate novel sentences and hence produce abstractive summaries. Recent progress in summarization has seen the development of supervised models which rely on large quantities of document-summary pairs. Since such training data is expensive to acquire, we instead consider the unsupervised setting, in other words, we do not use any summaries in training. We define a generative model for a review collection which capitalizes on the intuition that when generating a new review given a set of other reviews of a product, we should be able to control the "amount of novelty" going into the new review or, equivalently, vary the extent to which it deviates from the input. At test time, when generating summaries, we force the novelty to be minimal, and produce a text reflecting consensus opinions. We capture this intuition by defining a hierarchical variational autoencoder model. Both individual reviews and the products they correspond to are associated with stochastic latent codes, and the review generator ("decoder") has direct access to the text of input reviews through the pointer-generator mechanism. Experiments on Amazon and Yelp datasets, show that setting at test time the review's latent code to its mean, allows the model to produce fluent and coherent summaries reflecting common opinions.
Generating long and informative review text is a challenging natural language generation task. Previous work focuses on word-level generation, neglecting the importance of topical and syntactic characteristics from natural languages. In this paper, we propose a novel review generation model by characterizing an elaborately designed aspect-aware coarse-to-fine generation process. First, we model the aspect transitions to capture the overall content flow. Then, to generate a sentence, an aspect-aware sketch will be predicted using an aspect-aware decoder. Finally, another decoder fills in the semantic slots by generating corresponding words. Our approach is able to jointly utilize aspect semantics, syntactic sketch, and context information. Extensive experiments results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed model.
We conduct a large-scale, systematic study to evaluate the existing evaluation methods for natural language generation in the context of generating online product reviews. We compare human-based evaluators with a variety of automated evaluation procedures, including discriminative evaluators that measure how well machine-generated text can be distinguished from human-written text, as well as word overlap metrics that assess how similar the generated text compares to human-written references. We determine to what extent these different evaluators agree on the ranking of a dozen of state-of-the-art generators for online product reviews. We find that human evaluators do not correlate well with discriminative evaluators, leaving a bigger question of whether adversarial accuracy is the correct objective for natural language generation. In general, distinguishing machine-generated text is challenging even for human evaluators, and human decisions correlate better with lexical overlaps. We find lexical diversity an intriguing metric that is indicative of the assessments of different evaluators. A post-experiment survey of participants provides insights into how to evaluate and improve the quality of natural language generation systems.
Existing text generation methods tend to produce repeated and "boring" expressions. To tackle this problem, we propose a new text generation model, called Diversity-Promoting Generative Adversarial Network (DP-GAN). The proposed model assigns low reward for repeatedly generated text and high reward for "novel" and fluent text, encouraging the generator to produce diverse and informative text. Moreover, we propose a novel language-model based discriminator, which can better distinguish novel text from repeated text without the saturation problem compared with existing classifier-based discriminators. The experimental results on review generation and dialogue generation tasks demonstrate that our model can generate substantially more diverse and informative text than existing baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/lancopku/DPGAN