--- license: apache-2.0 task_categories: - text-generation language: - en size_categories: - 100K", "initial_score": { "rating": "7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact...", "confidence": "3: You are fairly confident...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 4 excellent\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "final_score": { "rating": "7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact...", "confidence": "3: You are fairly confident...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 4 excellent\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "initial_score_unified": { "rating": "7 accept, but needs minor improvements", "confidence": "The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct" }, "final_score_unified": { "rating": "7 accept, but needs minor improvements", "confidence": "The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct" } }, { "reviewer_id": "Reviewer_15hV", "review_title": "null", "review_content": "", "initial_score": { "rating": "5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where...", "confidence": "1: Your assessment is an educated guess...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 3 good\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "final_score": { "rating": "5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where...", "confidence": "1: Your assessment is an educated guess...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 3 good\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "initial_score_unified": { "rating": "5 marginally below the acceptance threshold", "confidence": "The reviewer's evaluation is an educated guess" }, "final_score_unified": { "rating": "5 marginally below the acceptance threshold", "confidence": "The reviewer's evaluation is an educated guess" } }, { "reviewer_id": "Reviewer_hkZK", "review_title": "null", "review_content": "", "initial_score": { "rating": "7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact..", "confidence": "3: You are fairly confident in your assessment...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 3 good\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "final_score": { "rating": "7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact...", "confidence": "3: You are fairly confident in your assessment...", "aspect_score": "soundness: 3 good\npresentation: 3 good\ncontribution: 3 good\n" }, "initial_score_unified": { "rating": "7 accept, but needs minor improvements", "confidence": "The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct" }, "final_score_unified": { "rating": "7 accept, but needs minor improvements", "confidence": "The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct" } } ], "review_initial_ratings_unified": [ 7, 5, 7 ], "review_final_ratings_unified": [ 7, 5, 7 ], "metareview": "The paper proves universal approximation in...", "decision": "Accept" } ] ``` ### REBUTTALS As for the rebuttal, we model the rebuttal and discussion data as a multi-turn conversation between reviewers and authors. This conversational setup enables the training and evaluation of dynamic, interactive LLM-based reviewing assistants, which can offer authors more practical and actionable guidance to improve their work before submission. To facilitate this, we split the rebuttal data into two files: [REBUTTAL_train](./REBUTTAL_train.json) and [REBUTTAL_test](./REBUTTAL_test.json). Specifically, for the Re²-Rebuttal dataset, we select 500 papers along with their rebuttals as the test set, while the remaining data is used for training. #### Rebuttal Data Format The format of the review data is below. - `paper_id` refers to the unique identifier of the paper on OpenReview - `messages` is formatted as a multi-turn conversation - `final_score` is the final score after the rebuttal - When the `role` is set to system, it defines the overall context for the entire rebuttal multi-turn dialogue - The first message with the `role` of user serves to trigger the review process, providing the model with the paper information and confirming its identity as a reviewer - Subsequent messages with the `role` of user serve as the author's responses - Messages with the `role` of assistant serve as the reviewer's comments or replies during the discussion ```json [ { "paper_id": "N-eul1pdagX", "conference_year_track": "ICLR 2023 Conference", "reviewer_id": "Reviewer_s4Ez", "messages": [ { "role": "system", "content": "\nYou are an experienced academic paper reviewer. You will receive a conference paper in the field of computer science or AI. Please analyze the paper content carefully and output your review content.\nMore importantly, the author will further explain or refute the review comments you gave, and you need to further discuss with the author based on the author's response. \nThe purpose of this rebuttal and discussion is:\n- Clarification: During the review process, the reviewer (you) may not accurately understand the contribution or method of the paper due to unclear expression or misunderstanding of certain details. Through rebuttal, the author has the opportunity to clarify these misunderstandings and further illustrate the effectiveness of their innovations or methods.\n- Respond to criticisms and suggestions: The reviewer (you) may make criticisms or suggestions on the paper, and the author can use the discussion session to provide specific responses, explain why certain criticisms may not apply, or how to improve and optimize certain aspects of the paper.\nFinally, you and the author will work together to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper and improve the quality of the paper.\n" }, { "role": "user", "content": "Now your reviewer ID is assigned as Reviewer_s4Ez, and the following are the paper you need to review:\n```<>```" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" }, { "role": "user", "content": "Title: Response to Reviewer s4Ez\nThank you for the extensive review. We address the questions and concerns piecewise:\n\n**Q1**: Fig. 1 - can you add some details on the sampling?\n\n**Response**: As suggested, we have now included some clarifying text..." }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Title: Post Review Discussion\nThank you for clarifying.\n\nI did not notice any changes to the text after equation 5, maybe accidentally not added?..." }, { "role": "user", "content": "Title: Response to Follow-up and Post Reviewer-Discussion Update\nThank you for following up.\n\n> I did not notice any changes to the text after equation 5, maybe accidentally not added?\n\nApologies, indeed, we created this sentence, but it was not added in the upload above due to a version control error on our part..." }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It was a pleasure to engage in the above discussion with the author, which has added considerable value to this work." } ], } ] ```