Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews
원문 초록
With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one popular quality aspect indicating whether the claims in a review are sufficiently supported by evidence -- and provide a solution automatizing this evaluation process. To achieve this goal, we first formulate the problem as claim-evidence pair extraction in scientific peer reviews, and collect SubstanReview, the first annotated dataset for this task. SubstanReview consists of 550 reviews from NLP conferences annotated by domain experts. On the basis of this dataset, we train an argument mining system to automatically analyze the level of substantiation in peer reviews. We also perform data analysis on the SubstanReview dataset to obtain meaningful insights on peer reviewing quality in NLP conferences over recent years.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
Leveraging Context for Multimodal Fallacy Classification in Political Debates
Enhancing Rhetorical Figure Annotation: An Ontology-Based Web Application with RAG Integration
CasiMedicos-Arg: A Medical Question Answering Dataset Annotated with Explanatory Argumentative Structures
KNOWCOMP POKEMON Team at DialAM-2024: A Two-Stage Pipeline for Detecting Relations in Dialogical Argument Mining
Argument Mining in Data Scarce Settings: Cross-lingual Transfer and Few-shot Techniques
In-Context Learning and Fine-Tuning GPT for Argument Mining
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.