pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.22638 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-30 · 💻 cs.MA · cs.AI· cs.LG

ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review

Palash Goyal , Mihir Parmar , Yiwen Song , Hamid Palangi , Tomas Pfister , Jinsung Yoon This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA cs.AIcs.LG
keywords multi-agent frameworkautomated peer reviewmachine learning submissionscontext-aware agentsICLR evaluationtechnical auditingliterature verificationbaseline scouting
0
0 comments X

The pith

ScholarPeer is a multi-agent system that splits peer review into field history synthesis, baseline scouting, and technical auditing to assist both authors and human reviewers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents ScholarPeer as a way to ease the strain on peer review caused by rising machine learning submissions. It deploys specialized agents that first map a subfield's recent trajectory, then search for overlooked state-of-the-art comparisons, and finally run targeted questions to test logical consistency, experimental validity, and mathematical claims against published work. When tested on roughly 1,800 ICLR papers from 2020 to 2025, the system records higher win rates than fine-tuned models and other agentic baselines. The framework is positioned as a co-scientist tool that can speed author revisions before submission and help reviewers verify details without replacing their judgment.

Core claim

ScholarPeer operationalizes senior-researcher auditing by structurally separating contextualization from critique through a sub-domain historian that synthesizes field trajectory, a baseline scout that proactively identifies omitted state-of-the-art comparisons, and a multi-aspect Q&A engine that audits internal consistency, experimental validity, and mathematical rigor while cross-referencing claims against top-tier venues. On a corpus of approximately 1,800 ICLR submissions spanning 2020-2025, the framework records significant win rates over state-of-the-art fine-tuned models and search-augmented agentic baselines.

What carries the argument

The three-role multi-agent decomposition consisting of a sub-domain historian for trajectory synthesis, a baseline scout for missing comparisons, and a multi-aspect Q&A engine for technical soundness audits.

If this is right

  • Authors can use the system for rapid pre-submission iteration before sending work to human reviewers.
  • Reviewers receive an active verification assistant that cross-checks claims against recent top-tier work.
  • The framework records higher win rates than fine-tuned or search-augmented baselines on large ICLR corpora.
  • The same decomposition can support both author mentoring and reviewer augmentation without replacing human judgment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be adapted to other conferences or disciplines by swapping the historian's knowledge base.
  • Integration into submission platforms might shorten the time from upload to initial feedback.
  • Systematic logging of agent outputs could later reveal which review aspects are hardest for current models.
  • Testing the same structure on non-ML papers would show whether the three-role split generalizes beyond computer science.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-agent split into historian, baseline scout, and Q&A roles will reliably surface technical issues, consistency problems, and literature gaps without adding new errors or biases that human reviewers would notice.

What would settle it

Human reviewers rate ScholarPeer-generated feedback lower than current baselines on a fresh set of submissions or fail to flag known flaws that the system overlooks.

read the original abstract

The exponential growth of machine learning submissions has strained the traditional peer review process, resulting in slow feedback loops for authors and an immense burden on reviewers to rigorously audit technical soundness and verify literature. To address this, we introduce ScholarPeer, a multi-agent framework designed to operationalize the rigorous auditing workflow of a senior researcher. Rather than attempting to replace human judgment, ScholarPeer serves as a co-scientist: acting as a mentor for rapid author iteration prior to submission, and as an active verification assistant that augments human reviewers. The framework structurally decouples contextualization from critique by deploying a sub-domain historian to synthesize the field's trajectory, a baseline scout to proactively hunt for omitted state-of-the-art comparisons, and a multi-aspect Q&A engine that deeply audits technical soundness-scrutinizing internal logical consistency, experimental validity, and mathematical rigor-while cross-referencing claims against top-tier academic venues. We comprehensively evaluate ScholarPeer on ~1,800 ICLR submissions spanning 2020 through 2025. Our results show that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art fine-tuned models and search-augmented agentic baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents ScholarPeer, a multi-agent framework for automated peer review that decomposes the process into a sub-domain historian agent (to synthesize field trajectories), a baseline scout agent (to identify omitted SOTA comparisons), and a multi-aspect Q&A engine (to audit technical soundness, consistency, and literature coverage). It evaluates the system on ~1,800 ICLR submissions (2020–2025) and claims significant win-rates against fine-tuned models and search-augmented agentic baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under human validation, ScholarPeer could meaningfully augment peer review by reducing reviewer burden while providing structured feedback on soundness and coverage. The multi-agent decomposition is a concrete operationalization of senior-researcher workflows, and the scale of the ICLR corpus is a strength; however, the absence of human preference data or correlation with actual reviewer decisions limits immediate significance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: the headline claim of 'significant win-rates' supplies no quantitative metrics, baseline specifications, statistical tests, confidence intervals, or error analysis, rendering the central empirical result unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation protocol: the win-rate comparison is conducted solely against other models; no human preference study, expert rating protocol, or inter-rater reliability metric is described, so it is impossible to confirm that ScholarPeer outputs are actually superior on technical soundness, internal consistency, or literature coverage—the weakest assumption of the multi-agent design.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it stated the precise win-rate definition (e.g., pairwise preference by an LLM judge) and the exact baselines used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We appreciate the emphasis on verifiability of the empirical claims and the evaluation protocol. We will revise the manuscript to strengthen these aspects while preserving the core contribution of the multi-agent framework evaluated at scale on the ICLR corpus.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: the headline claim of 'significant win-rates' supplies no quantitative metrics, baseline specifications, statistical tests, confidence intervals, or error analysis, rendering the central empirical result unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and evaluation section would be strengthened by explicit quantitative details. The full evaluation reports win-rates on the 1,800-paper corpus against fine-tuned models and search-augmented baselines, but these figures, baseline configurations, statistical tests, confidence intervals, and error breakdowns are not summarized in the abstract. In the revised version we will (1) update the abstract with headline win-rate percentages and significance indicators, and (2) expand the evaluation section with baseline specifications, the exact statistical procedure (e.g., paired proportion tests with bootstrap CIs), and a per-aspect error analysis. This directly addresses the verifiability concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation protocol: the win-rate comparison is conducted solely against other models; no human preference study, expert rating protocol, or inter-rater reliability metric is described, so it is impossible to confirm that ScholarPeer outputs are actually superior on technical soundness, internal consistency, or literature coverage—the weakest assumption of the multi-agent design.

    Authors: The evaluation protocol deliberately uses large-scale automated win-rate comparisons against strong model baselines on 1,800 ICLR submissions to obtain reproducible, scalable metrics of performance on soundness, consistency, and coverage. This design choice enables objective head-to-head assessment without the cost and variability of human raters. We acknowledge that correlation with human expert judgments would provide complementary evidence. In the revision we will add an explicit limitations paragraph discussing the absence of human preference data and inter-rater reliability metrics, and we will outline concrete directions for future human validation studies. The current results still demonstrate that the multi-agent decomposition outperforms prior automated systems on the stated automated metrics. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical system evaluation

full rationale

The paper introduces a multi-agent framework (historian, baseline scout, multi-aspect Q&A) for peer review assistance and evaluates it via win-rate comparisons on ~1800 ICLR submissions against fine-tuned models and search-augmented baselines. No equations, derivations, parameter fittings, or mathematical claims appear in the text. The evaluation consists of direct empirical comparisons rather than any prediction derived from fitted inputs or self-defined quantities. No self-citations are used as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or imported results. The central claims rest on observable win-rates against external baselines and do not reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction, rendering the work self-contained as a standard system-description paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that LLM-based agents can be specialized to perform reliable literature synthesis, baseline detection, and technical auditing; no free parameters or invented physical entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Decomposing peer review into independent agent roles improves accuracy over single-model approaches
    Implicit in the design of separate historian, scout, and Q&A components.
invented entities (3)
  • Sub-domain historian agent no independent evidence
    purpose: Synthesize the field's trajectory from literature
    New specialized role introduced by the framework
  • Baseline scout agent no independent evidence
    purpose: Proactively identify omitted state-of-the-art comparisons
    New specialized role introduced by the framework
  • Multi-aspect Q&A engine no independent evidence
    purpose: Audit logical consistency, experimental validity, and mathematical rigor
    New specialized component introduced by the framework

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1433 out tokens · 50052 ms · 2026-05-16T09:47:08.475903+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    It accurately flags when papers ignore baselines published just months prior to the cutoff, whereas AI Scientist v2 often accepts the provided baselines as sufficient

    that invalidate the authors’ claims of novelty or performance. It accurately flags when papers ignore baselines published just months prior to the cutoff, whereas AI Scientist v2 often accepts the provided baselines as sufficient. /check-circleAdvantage: Experimental Rigor & Validity ScholarPeer excels at critiquing the experimental setup itself, identify...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Problem Statement & Motivation: The paper addresses the challenge of estimating theIndividualized Dose-Response Function (IDRF)—the causal effect ofcontinuous treatments(e.g., medication dosage) on individual outcomes. Current Limitations Identified: • Discrete Constraints:Most existing Individual Treatment Effect (ITE) methods are limited to binary or di...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The core philosophy is to disentangle covariates into three distinct latent factors and apply selection bias adjustment only where theoretically necessary

    Methodology: DBRNet The authors propose theDisentangled and Balanced Representation Network (DBRNet). The core philosophy is to disentangle covariates into three distinct latent factors and apply selection bias adjustment only where theoretically necessary. A. Disentangled Latent Factors •Instrumental Factors (Γ(𝑥)):Affect Treatment (𝑇) but not Outcome (𝑌...

    work page

  4. [4]

    • Theoretical Bias Elimination:Theorem 2 proves that re-weighting based on Instrumental and Confounder factors yields an unbiased estimation of the IDRF loss

    Key Contributions • First Disentanglement for Continuous Treatment:DBRNet combines disentangled representation learning with precise selection bias adjustment for continuous settings. • Theoretical Bias Elimination:Theorem 2 proves that re-weighting based on Instrumental and Confounder factors yields an unbiased estimation of the IDRF loss. • Selective Ba...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Main Results & Experiments Evaluated onSynthetic,IHDP, andNewsdatasets using Mean Integrated Squared Error (MISE) and Average MSE (AMSE). Quantitative Performance 28 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review •DBRNet outperformed baselines (Dragonet, DRNet, VCNet, TransTEE) across almost all metrics. •Synthetic MISE:DBRNe...

    work page

  6. [6]

    control)

    Domain History: From Binning to Disentanglement Five years ago, the dominant paradigm in Causal Inference was restricted tobinarytreatments(treated vs. control). The foundational work byShalit et al. (2017)establishedRepresentation Learning—specifically balancing covariate distributions between groups—as the standard for handling selection bias. The shift...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    unsolved

    Open Problems & Gaps Despite recent progress, distinct “unsolved” territories remain:

    work page

  8. [8]

    Handling images or text as confounders remains theoretically sparse, thoughStoNetandCausalDiffAE (2024)are making attempts

    High-Dimensional & Unstructured Confounding:Most SOTA methods (VCNet, TransTEE) are bench- marked on low-dimensional tabular data. Handling images or text as confounders remains theoretically sparse, thoughStoNetandCausalDiffAE (2024)are making attempts

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Regression Precision:Generative approaches (GANs, Diffusion) offer high-fidelity counterfactuals but suffer from training instability

    Generative Stability vs. Regression Precision:Generative approaches (GANs, Diffusion) offer high-fidelity counterfactuals but suffer from training instability. Bridging this gap with the precision of VCNet is an open challenge

    work page

  10. [10]

    Data Scarcity & Pre-training: CURE (2024)highlighted the potential of Foundation Models, but this is under-explored due to the scarcity of large-scale biomedical datasets for continuous interventions

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Significant

    Significance Criteria (2025 Era) For a new contribution to be deemed “Significant”, it must go beyond marginal MISE improvements on the IHDP benchmark. • Low Significance:Another MLP-based architecture that slightly beats DRNet on tabular data using standard re-weighting. •High Significance: –Metric Innovation:Rigorous handling ofhigh-dimensional unstruct...

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    The authors discuss it in the text but exclude it from the main results table, avoiding a direct comparison

    Missing Critical Baselines The following key methods are absent from the evaluation, potentially inflating the perceived relative performance of the proposed method: 29 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review •SCIGAN(Bica et al., NeurIPS 2020) –Why it matters:This is a seminal SOTA method for continuous treatments. The...

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    GAFM lacks the rigor of Marvell’s upper bound

    Missing Standard Benchmarks Theevaluationreliesheavilyonsyntheticorlow-dimensionaldata, omittingstandardhigh-dimensionalorreal-world benchmarks: •TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas)(Schwab et al., AAAI 2020) –Significance:The standard high-dimensional benchmark (20k+ features) for continuous dosage. Its omission hides potential scalability issues of the comple...

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Expert Baseline

    Read Human Reviews:Establish the “Expert Baseline.” Note what the humans caught and what they might have missed

    work page

  15. [15]

    Run experiment X on dataset Y

    Evaluate AI Reviews (Individually):Score both AI reviews on a 1-10 scale against the Human Baseline. 4.Side-by-Side (SxS) Comparison:Determine which of the two AI assistants performed better. F.3. 3. Part I: Individual Scoring (Scale 1-10) For each AI review, you will assign a score based on how it compares to thebest human review available for that paper...

    work page

  16. [16]

    ∗The Specific Sub−field (e.g., Weakly Supervised Object Detection)

    Domain Analysis: Analyze the input paper abstract to identify: ∗The Broad Domain (e.g., Computer Vision). ∗The Specific Sub−field (e.g., Weakly Supervised Object Detection). ∗The Core Problem being solved

    work page

  17. [17]

    You must look for: ∗Foundational Papers: The papers that established the current paradigms (even if older)

    Search Execution (Iterative): Use Google Search to find 30−50 of the most scientifically significant papers in this sub−field. You must look for: ∗Foundational Papers: The papers that established the current paradigms (even if older). ∗Key Datasets: Papers introducing the primary datasets used in this sub−field, or specific datasets used by the input pape...

    work page

  18. [18]

    Achieved 78.4% top−1 accuracy on ImageNet, outperforming FE−Net (72.9%)

    Data Extraction: ∗For each identified paper, extract the specific details required for our records (see output format below). ∗For core_method, provide a specific description of their technical approach or dataset (few sentences). ∗For datasets_and_performance, be as specific as possible about what was evaluated and the performance numbers (e.g., "Achieve...

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Analyze Gaps: ∗Do we have the foundational papers that the current SOTA papers likely cite? (e.g., If we have'Crossformer', do we have the original'Transformer'or'Autoformer'papers?) ∗Do we have the papers that introduced the datasets listed in the domain_analysis? ∗Are there temporal gaps? (e.g., We have 2018 and 2024, but nothing from 2020−2023)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Targeted Search: Perform specific searches to find these missing papers (Constraint: published ON OR BEFORE { cutoff_date})

    work page

  21. [21]

    title":

    Output: Return a list of new unique papers to add to the reference list. Do not repeat existing papers. ∗∗Current Reference List:∗∗ ```json {current_references_json} Output Format: Respond only with a JSON list of new reference objects (using the same schema as the input). [ {{ "title": "Autoformer: Decomposition Transformers for Long−Term Series Forecast...

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Based on the paper, identify the research domain, the datasets used, and the baseline methods compared

    work page

  23. [23]

    Search for recent (last 3 years, before {cutoff_date}) SOTA methods for this domain

    work page

  24. [24]

    Identify specific methods and significant datasets that are MISSING from the authors'list

    work page

  25. [25]

    missing_baselines

    Return a list of these missing competitors and why they are relevant. Constraint: Only return papers published ON OR BEFORE {cutoff_date}. Output JSON format: {{ "missing_baselines": [ {{ 36 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review "name": "Method Name", "reference": "Author et al., Conf Year", "reason": "Why it is a cr...

    work page

  26. [26]

    A contribution might be a new model, a new dataset, a new algorithm, a new theoretical insight, or a new application

    Identify Contribution Claims: First, carefully read the Paper Summary and Paper Text to identify the { num_questions} primary contribution claims. A contribution might be a new model, a new dataset, a new algorithm, a new theoretical insight, or a new application. A domain narrative is also provided to give context on the evolution of the field and open p...

    work page

  27. [27]

    What is the novelty and significance of using'emotional prompts'to improve reasoning in language models?

    Formulate Simple Questions (one per claim): For each claim you identified, formulate one simple and direct question that assesses its novelty and significance. This question is a directive for a research assistant (who does not have the paper) to find conflicting or related prior art. Example Claim: The paper uses'emotional prompts'to scale reasoning in L...

    work page

  28. [28]

    Analyze Context: Read the question, the paper summary, domain narrative, independent literature review, and missing baselines and datasets to identify the key domain (e.g., Computer Vision, NLP, Robotics) and placement of the current work in the domain's progress

    work page

  29. [29]

    Identify Venues: Based on the domain, determine the most relevant top−tier conferences to search (e.g., CVPR, ICCV, ECCV for Vision; NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, ACL, EMNLP for NLP/ML)

    work page

  30. [30]

    Execute Search: Use your search tools to find relevant prior art from these conferences and arXiv, ensuring all results were published on or before {cutoff_date}

    work page

  31. [31]

    Assess Novelty: Based on your search, the domain narrative and independent literature review, determine if the 38 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review claim is new, incremental, or a known concept

    work page

  32. [32]

    Is it a niche problem or a major one? Are improvements likely to be large or small?

    Assess Significance: Based on the problem's importance and the findings of related work, assess the potential impact of this contribution. Is it a niche problem or a major one? Are improvements likely to be large or small?

    work page

  33. [33]

    Answer format:

    Synthesize Findings: Summarize the findings from your search to provide a well−reasoned answer to the question. Answer format:

    work page

  34. [34]

    Ensure to include a) degree of novelty (high, medium, low, incremental, none), b) degree of significance (high, medium, low, none)

    A direct, paragraph−style answer to the question. Ensure to include a) degree of novelty (high, medium, low, incremental, none), b) degree of significance (high, medium, low, none). Include reasoning for your assessments

    work page

  35. [35]

    Novelty and Significance Assessment

    A bulleted list of 2−3 most relevant papers that support your answer. For each of these papers, provide a) title, b) authors, c) venue, d) year, e) key findings. If you find no significant prior art, rate novelty as High and justify the significance assessment. Domain Narrative: {domain_narrative} Independent Literature Review: {literature_review} Missing...

    work page

  36. [37]

    40 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review

    Identify the strongest points in the Human Reviews (collectively) to establish a standard expert baseline. 40 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review

    work page

  37. [38]

    Identify the delta: What did the AI mention that the humans missed? What did the humans mention that the AI missed?

    work page

  38. [39]

    Verify the validity of each of the delta claims using direct quotes from the paper and external sources (for novelty and significance only)

    work page

  39. [40]

    diverging

    Assess the value−add of the AI review compared to the best human review for each aspect. −If the AI includes a Literature Survey or cites papers that humans missed: REWARD THIS HEAVILY. This is a superhuman trait. Do not penalize it for "diverging" from humans. −If the AI asks Deep Questions about assumptions that humans accepted blindly: REWARD THIS. You...

    work page

  40. [44]

    high novelty

    Verify and Compare: −Did the AI find prior work that limits novelty which the humans missed? (High Score) −Did the AI claim "high novelty" when humans correctly identified it as derivative work? (Low Score) −Which assessment aligns better with the actual state of the field at the time?

    work page

  41. [49]

    Value−Add

    Consider alternative interpretations ∗∗Input Format:∗∗ #### Paper Text: #### <Paper text> #### AI Assistant's Review: #### <AI Review> #### Human Reviews (Ground Truth): #### <Human Reviews> ∗∗Respond in the following format:∗∗ THOUGHT: <THOUGHT> EVALUATION JSON: ```json <JSON> 41 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Revie...

    work page

  42. [50]

    Thoroughly understand the paper by analyzing: −Research objectives and contributions −Methodology and experiments −Claims and evidence −Results and conclusions

    work page

  43. [51]

    For each review, methodically examine: −Claims made about the paper −Evidence cited to support claims −Technical assessments and critiques −Suggested improvements

    work page

  44. [52]

    Compare reviews systematically using: −Direct quotes from paper and reviews −Specific examples and counterexamples −Clear reasoning chains −Objective quality metrics You will evaluate reviews based on these key aspects: ∗∗Technical Accuracy∗∗ −Are claims consistent with paper content? −Is evidence properly interpreted? −Are technical assessments valid? −A...

    work page

  45. [53]

    Identify claims: What do the paper and reviewers claim is novel?

    work page

  46. [54]

    Formulate search queries: Create targeted queries to find relevant prior work for these specific claims, explicitly restricting results to before {cutoff_date}

    work page

  47. [55]

    Execute Search: Focus on top−tier conferences in the relevant domain and arXiv

    work page

  48. [56]

    Verify and Compare: −Did reviewer A or reviewer B miss a critical prior work that you found? 43 ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review −Did reviewer A or reviewer B accurately identify that a novel claim is actually a known technique? −Which reviewer's assessment of significance aligns better with the actual state of ...

    work page

  49. [57]

    For each of the above aspects and overall judgment, you must:

    Cite Sources: You must cite the specific external papers (title, venue, year) you used to make this determination in the JSON output. For each of the above aspects and overall judgment, you must:

    work page

  50. [58]

    Provide specific evidence from source materials

    work page

  51. [59]

    Novelty and Significance Assessment

    Quote directly from paper and reviews; external sources only for "Novelty and Significance Assessment"

    work page

  52. [60]

    Explain your reasoning in detail

    work page

  53. [61]

    Technical Accuracy Reason

    Consider alternative interpretations ∗∗Input Format:∗∗ #### Paper Text: #### <Paper text> #### Assistant A's Review: #### <Review A> #### Assistant B's Review: #### <Review B> ∗∗Respond in the following format:∗∗ THOUGHT: <THOUGHT> REVIEW COMPARISON JSON: ```json <JSON> ``` In <THOUGHT>, for each aspect, evaluate assistants A and B based on the above crit...

    work page