arXiv subjects

Owen Jiang

Publications and source records attributed to Owen Jiang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Language Models as Higher-Order Planning Formalizers

Recent work provides overwhelming evidence that LLMs, even those trained to scale their reasoning trace, quickly deteriorate at planning as problems become more complex. LLM-as-Formalizers aim to address this by employing LLMs as a bridge to translate natural language descriptions into structured planning representations such as PDDL, which are then fed to a programmatic solver. We observe that its success may be overstated because planning problem descriptions in standard benchmarks often have a one-to-one mapping to PDDL, which departs from real use cases. To address this, we introduce the notion of unraveling problems where a natural yet succinct description translates into a very large PDDL representation. Using unraveling variants of four standard planning domains, we demonstrate that LLM Formalizers also do not always scale. We tackle this challenge by introducing a new paradigm, LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer, where the LLM generates a high-level program that captures the recurrent logic within the description and in turn generates the larger PDDL representation. This decouples token output from the combinatorial explosion of the underlying formalization and search space, leading to improved performance for complex problems.

cs.CL↗