CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 31, 2026

Defend: Automated Rebuttals for Peer Review with Minimal Author Guidance

arXiv AI Archived Mar 31, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.27360v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rebuttal generation is a critical component of the peer review process for scientific papers, enabling authors to clarify misunderstandings, correct factual inaccuracies, and guide reviewers toward a more accurate evaluation. We observe that Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to perform targeted refutation and maintain accurate factual grounding when used directly for rebuttal generation, highlighting the need for structured reasoning and

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 28 Mar 2026] Defend: Automated Rebuttals for Peer Review with Minimal Author Guidance Jyotsana Khatri, Manasi Patwardhan Rebuttal generation is a critical component of the peer review process for scientific papers, enabling authors to clarify misunderstandings, correct factual inaccuracies, and guide reviewers toward a more accurate evaluation. We observe that Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to perform targeted refutation and maintain accurate factual grounding when used directly for rebuttal generation, highlighting the need for structured reasoning and author intervention. To address this, in the paper, we introduce DEFEND an LLM based tool designed to explicitly execute the underlying reasoning process of automated rebuttal generation, while keeping the author-in-the-loop. As opposed to writing the rebuttals from scratch, the author needs to only drive the reasoning process with minimal intervention, leading an efficient approach with minimal effort and less cognitive load. We compare DEFEND against three other paradigms: (i) Direct rebuttal generation using LLM (DRG), (ii) Segment-wise rebuttal generation using LLM (SWRG), and (iii) Sequential approach (SA) of segment-wise rebuttal generation without author intervention. To enable finegrained evaluation, we extend the ReviewCritique dataset, creating review segmentation, deficiency, error type annotations, rebuttal-action labels, and mapping to gold rebuttal segments. Experimental results and a user study demonstrate that directly using LLMs perform poorly in factual correctness and targeted refutation. Segment-wise generation and the automated sequential approach with author-in-the-loop, substantially improve factual correctness and strength of refutation. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2603.27360 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2603.27360v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27360 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Jyotsana Khatri [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 18:12:31 UTC (958 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 Change to browse by: cs 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Mar 31, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 31, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗