Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294G4QQE5FEXXM0RAHD7KPC
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 4 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11460
- T1 · 4 h ago
- Category
- cs.CL
- T1 · 4 h ago
Abstract
Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents. Existing benchmarks do not capture this setting and largely focus on explicit, information-seeking queries. We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers. We build on a simple observation: author rebuttals often include explicit references to content of the submission used to address reviewer comments, providing a high-precision annotation source. We cast grounding as a retrieval task and evaluate a wide range of retrieval methods. Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses. Our dataset exposes grounding reviewer comments as a difficult and practically important problem for scientific document understanding.
Authors 3
Serwar Basch, Lizhen Qu, Iryna Gurevych
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11460
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.CL, cs.IR
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.CL
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
4 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Serwar Basch, Lizhen Qu, Iryna Gurevych
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents. Existing benchmarks do not capture this setting and largely focus on explicit, information-seeking queries. We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers. We build on a simple observation: author rebuttals often include explicit references to content of the submission used to address reviewer comments, providing a high-precision annotation source. We cast grounding as a retrieval task and evaluate a wide range of retrieval methods. Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses. Our dataset exposes grounding reviewer comments as a difficult and practically important problem for scientific document understanding. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
New paper: ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidence
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CL | feed | T1· Official | 2 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.