GoodPoint: Learning Constructive Scientific Paper Feedback from Author Responses
arXiv AIArchived Apr 15, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.11924v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While LLMs hold significant potential to transform scientific research, we advocate for their use to augment and empower researchers rather than to automate research without human oversight. To this end, we study constructive feedback generation, the task of producing targeted, actionable feedback that helps authors improve both their research and its presentation. In this work, we operationalize the effectiveness of feedback along two author-centr
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 13 Apr 2026]
GoodPoint: Learning Constructive Scientific Paper Feedback from Author Responses
Jimin Mun, Chani Jung, Xuhui Zhou, Hyunwoo Kim, Maarten Sap
While LLMs hold significant potential to transform scientific research, we advocate for their use to augment and empower researchers rather than to automate research without human oversight. To this end, we study constructive feedback generation, the task of producing targeted, actionable feedback that helps authors improve both their research and its presentation. In this work, we operationalize the effectiveness of feedback along two author-centric axes-validity and author action. We first curate GoodPoint-ICLR, a dataset of 19K ICLR papers with reviewer feedback annotated along both dimensions using author responses. Building on this, we introduce GoodPoint, a training recipe that leverages success signals from author responses through fine-tuning on valid and actionable feedback, together with preference optimization on both real and synthetic preference pairs. Our evaluation on a benchmark of 1.2K ICLR papers shows that a GoodPoint-trained Qwen3-8B improves the predicted success rate by 83.7% over the base model and sets a new state-of-the-art among LLMs of similar size in feedback matching on a golden human feedback set, even surpassing Gemini-3-flash in precision. We further validate these findings through an expert human study, demonstrating that GoodPoint consistently delivers higher practical value as perceived by authors.
Comments: 22 pages, 6 figures
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.11924 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2604.11924v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.11924
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Jimin Mun [view email]
[v1] Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:12:57 UTC (494 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)