Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

ReGround introduces a large-scale dataset linking reviewer comments to specific evidence within long multimodal scientific papers, addressing a gap in existing benchmarks focused on simple queries. By leveraging author rebuttals as high-precision annotations, the study demonstrates that retrieval performance suffers when ignoring evidence type inference and multimodal signals beyond text alone. This work advances scientific document understanding by framing comment grounding as a complex retrieval task essential for AI systems processing academic literature.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidence

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.11460v1 Announce Type: new 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.

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.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

arXiv:2609.11460 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.11460v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.11460 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 250 words

Related coverage