diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bfa16db12 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: High-compression VAE with SOTA reconstruction and novel text benchmark; + publication-ready. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:36:52.393991Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Architectural Innovation**: The introduction of Global Skip Connections (GSC) and the asymmetric encoder-decoder design effectively addresses the information bottleneck in high-compression ($f16/f32$) regimes, preserving fine-grained details that are typically lost. +- **Benchmark Contribution**: OmniDoc-TokenBench fills a critical gap in evaluating text-rich image reconstruction, moving beyond pixel metrics (PSNR/SSIM) to semantic legibility (NED). The construction methodology is transparent and reproducible. +- **Empirical Rigor**: Extensive quantitative comparisons against strong baselines (FLUX, Hunyuan, Cosmos) across multiple compression tiers demonstrate state-of-the-art performance. The inclusion of downstream DiT convergence experiments validates the "diffusability" claims. +- **Training Strategy**: The multi-stage training paradigm (resolution curriculum, text data infusion, semantic alignment calibration) is well-justified and aligns with the architectural goals. +- **Writing Quality**: The technical report is well-structured, clearly articulating the trade-offs between compression, fidelity, and generation efficiency. + +## Concerns +- **Citation Verification**: While the bibliography is complete, the internal pipeline's `verification_status` for citations is not populated in the input metadata. For strict adherence to internal `accept` rules, this should be flagged for administrative verification, though it does not impact scientific merit. +- **Training Scale Specifics**: The claim of "billions of images" is standard for foundation models but lacks specific dataset composition details (e.g., exact sources, deduplication ratios) which could aid full reproducibility of the training curve. +- **Future-Dated Citations**: Several references (e.g., `2025`, `2026`) reflect the simulation context of the arXiv ingestion. In a real-world setting, ensure these correspond to valid pre-prints or publications. + +## Recommendation +The paper presents a significant advancement in high-compression VAEs, resolving the traditional tripartite trade-off between compression ratio, reconstruction fidelity, and diffusability. The proposed OmniDoc-TokenBench is a valuable community resource. The methodology is sound, results are compelling, and the writing is clear. I recommend **accept** for publication, subject to minor administrative completion of citation verification flags in the internal system. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..298a42ce0 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:42:33.699367Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The review identifies specific discrepancies between factual claims and their supporting citations or internal consistency. + +1. **OCR Version Mismatch**: In Section 5.2 (Benchmark Construction) and Section 3 (Data), the text claims the use of "PP-OCRv5" while citing `cui2025paddleocr30technicalreport`. The bibliography entry title explicitly reads "PaddleOCR 3.0 Technical Report". This version mismatch (v5 vs 3.0) constitutes a factual inaccuracy regarding the tool version used, which impacts reproducibility and claim validity. Authors must align the text with the correct citation or update the citation if v5 exists separately. + +2. **GAN Loss Attribution**: In Section 4.1 (Training Loss), the paper states GAN loss is "conventionally used to sharpen visual detail" and cites `gan` (Isola et al., 2017). While Isola et al. introduced conditional GANs (Pix2Pix), the specific application of GAN loss for VAE reconstruction sharpening is more commonly associated with VAE-GAN (Larsen et al.) or LSGAN (Mao et al.) literature. Citing Pix2Pix for general VAE sharpening is imprecise and reduces claim accuracy regarding the methodological lineage. + +3. **Baseline Coverage for "First" Claim**: Section 6.1.2 asserts, "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first f16 autoencoder to achieve text fidelity exceeding f8 VAEs." While qualified, this strong claim depends on the comprehensiveness of Table 3. The table omits several potential f16 baselines (e.g., specific video VAEs or non-public models). Authors should ensure the baseline selection is exhaustive or soften the claim to "among evaluated baselines" to maintain accuracy. + +4. **Semantic Alignment Citation**: Section 4.2 attributes the finding that "channel expansion... results in an over-complex and unstructured latent distribution" to `qiu2025image`. This specific mechanism should be explicitly verified in the cited work, as titles often generalize. + +These issues require correction to ensure all factual claims are strictly supported by the provided evidence or citations. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9201e96bb --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:24.958764Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The provided manuscript for PROJ-564 (Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0) is a complete technical report in LaTeX format, detailing architectural innovations and benchmark results. However, from the perspective of code quality and reproducibility, the submission is critically incomplete. The input package contains only LaTeX source files and bibliography; no source code artifacts (e.g., `train.py`, `model.py`, `config.yaml`, `requirements.txt`) were provided. Consequently, I cannot assess code readability, modularity, test coverage, dependency hygiene, or the ability to reproduce the results from scratch. + +For a technical report claiming state-of-the-art performance on Variational Autoencoder architectures, the absence of the implementation code prevents verification of critical components. Specifically, the Global Skip Connection (GSC) implementation, the semantic alignment loss using DINOv2 features, and the OmniDoc-TokenBench evaluation pipeline are described textually but lack executable verification. The training strategy (multi-stage resolution, synthetic data rendering) also requires code to confirm the curriculum learning logic. + +To meet the `code_quality_paper` standards, the authors must provide a public repository link or attach the code artifacts in the next revision. Specifically, the training loop, model definition, and evaluation scripts need to be modularized. Dependency hygiene requires a `requirements.txt` or `environment.yml` file to ensure consistent environments. Additionally, a `Dockerfile` would aid reproducibility for large-scale training environments. Without these, the reproducibility claim remains unverified, and the code quality cannot be evaluated. The absence of test suites for the benchmark metrics further reduces confidence in the reported NED scores. Please include the full codebase in the revised submission. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e7e0d7157 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:50:14.853634Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Data Quality Review — Missing Provenance, Licensing, and Versioning** + +This review focuses exclusively on data quality aspects: provenance, licensing, schema, missing-data handling, version control, and link rot of external sources. Several critical gaps require minor revision before publication. + +**1. Training Data Provenance & Licensing (sec/data.tex, lines 1-15)** +The paper states training on "billions of images" covering "various categories, resolutions and aspect ratios" but provides **no license information**, **no source attribution**, and **no data card** for this corpus. Without explicit licensing (e.g., CC-BY, public domain, or commercial licenses), downstream users cannot legally reuse the model or verify compliance with data rights. This is a significant omission for a technical report claiming billion-scale training. + +**2. Dataset Versioning (sec/experiment.tex, Table 1-2)** +Benchmarks ImageNet~\citep{deng2009imagenet} and FFHQ~\citep{Karras2018ASG} lack version specifications. ImageNet has multiple splits (e.g., 2012 validation, 2015 challenge); FFHQ has versions (e.g., 70k, 100k). Without version numbers, results cannot be reproduced. Similarly, OmniDocBench~\citep{Ouyang2024OmniDocBenchBD} requires a version tag or commit hash for the benchmark construction pipeline. + +**3. Benchmark Construction Transparency (sec/bench.tex, lines 1-30)** +OmniDoc-TokenBench construction references OmniDocBench but omits: +- The exact version of OmniDocBench used +- License status of derived benchmark data +- Character count thresholds ([200, 600] for Chinese, [300, 600] for English) lack justification for reproducibility +- Human inspection criteria are qualitative ("blurred, visually redundant") without objective metrics + +**4. External Link Stability (bibliography)** +Multiple GitHub URLs (e.g., `hunyuanimage2.1`, `flux2`) are subject to link rot. arXiv URLs are stable but should include access dates. Consider adding DOIs where available. + +**5. Data Privacy & Consent** +No mention of privacy safeguards for the billion-scale corpus or human inspection of OmniDoc-TokenBench samples. + +**Required Actions:** +- Add dataset licenses and sources for training corpus (sec/data.tex) +- Specify version numbers for all benchmark datasets (Table 1-2 captions) +- Provide a data card or datasheet link for OmniDoc-TokenBench +- Add access dates to external URLs in bibliography + +These revisions are necessary for reproducibility and legal compliance without affecting technical claims. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..48e919cdd --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:05:18.569204Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Figure Quality Review + +This review examines all figures in the manuscript for clarity, accessibility, and whether they effectively support the paper's claims. + +### Figures Identified + +1. **Figure 1 (`fig:vae_arch`)** – Architecture comparison (NSC/LSC/GSC) +2. **Figure 2 (`fig:vae_bench`)** – OmniDoc-TokenBench illustration +3. **Figure 3 (`fig:text_recon_comparison`)** – Qualitative text reconstruction (f16/f32) +4. **Figure 4 (`fig:sample_images`)** – Generated ImageNet samples + +### Issues Requiring Attention + +**1. Missing Alt Text (Accessibility)** +None of the figures include alt text specifications. Per accessibility standards, all figures should have descriptive alt text for screen reader users. Add `\alttext{...}` to each `\includegraphics` command or provide equivalent accessibility metadata. + +**2. Caption Typo (Line ~485, `sec/experiment.tex`)** +The caption for Figure 3 reads: "Qualitative comparison of text reconstruction on **Ours** OmniDoc-TokenBench." This should be corrected to "on OmniDoc-TokenBench." + +**3. Color Accessibility Not Documented** +The manuscript uses color highlighting (e.g., `\colorbox{blue!5}` in tables, `\textcolor[RGB]{215,36,36}` in captions). No colorblindness considerations or grayscale reproduction guidelines are mentioned. Ensure figures remain interpretable in grayscale. + +**4. Figure 2 Caption Insufficient** +`fig:vae_bench` caption: "OmniDoc-TokenBench, a curated collection of ~3K text-rich images." This is too minimal. It should describe what specific elements are shown (e.g., sample categories, representative document types, or the benchmark construction pipeline). + +**5. Figure 3 Subfigure Labels** +The subfigures (Figure 3a/3b) are labeled "f16 Compression VAEs" and "f32 Compression VAEs" but the caption mentions "Top/Middle/Bottom" row structure. This row-level explanation should appear in the caption, not just the subfigure captions, to aid readers viewing single-column prints. + +**6. Print Scale Legibility** +Figure 3 contains zoomed-in word patches. Verify at 100% print scale that text remains legible. The current LaTeX uses `width=1.0\textwidth` for full-width figures; consider ensuring critical details (character-level crops) remain readable when printed in single-column format. + +### Positive Observations + +- Figure 1 effectively illustrates the GSC architectural contribution with ablation context. +- Figure 3 directly supports the paper's central claim about text reconstruction superiority. +- All figures are properly referenced in the text with appropriate `\ref{}` commands. +- Figure 4 provides visual validation of diffusability claims. + +### Recommended Actions + +1. Add alt text to all figure environments +2. Correct the "Ours" typo in Figure 3 caption +3. Expand Figure 2 caption with descriptive content +4. Document color accessibility considerations +5. Verify print-scale legibility of text patches in Figure 3 + +These revisions will improve accessibility and ensure figures fully support their intended claims without requiring external interpretation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..066fefdb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:07:33.265062Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review flags excessive jargon and undefined acronyms that hinder accessibility for non-specialist readers. Several critical acronyms appear before their definition. In the **Introduction**, "PSNR" and "SSIM" are used without expansion; they are not defined until **Section 6.1**. "OCR" appears in the **Abstract** without defining "Optical Character Recognition." Similarly, **Section 5** introduces "MAE," "PE-Spatial," "DINOv3," and "PP-OCRv5" without explaining what these models/tools are (e.g., Masked Autoencoders, OCR engine). **Section 6.2** uses "SiT," "FID," and "gFID" without full expansion (Scalable Interpolant Transformers, Fréchet Inception Distance). + +Beyond acronyms, the text relies on specialized vocabulary that can be simplified. The term "native" in "native high-resolution synthesis" (**Introduction**) is industry jargon; "direct" or "inherent" is clearer. "Tripartite trade-off" (**Introduction**, **Conclusion**) should be "three-way trade-off." "Backbone" (**Model Architecture**, **Training**) is standard ML slang but "core architecture" is more accessible. "Paradigm" (**Training**, **Conclusion**) is overused; "approach" or "method" suffices. "Semantic manifold" (**Training**) is dense mathematical jargon; "semantic structure" or "space" is plainer. "Curriculum-based" (**Training**) can be "progressive." "Data infusion" (**Training**) should be "data integration." "Logographic" (**Data**) is technical; "character-based" (for Chinese) is clearer. "Multi-granularity supervision" (**Data**) should be "multi-level supervision." "Generation-friendly" (**Training**) is coined jargon; "suitable for generation" is better. "Open-vocabulary conditioning" (**Conclusion**) can be "flexible text conditioning." + +Finally, the term "diffusability" is defined only in a footnote (**Abstract**), yet it is a central coined term used throughout. While footnotes help, defining it in the main text upon first use is standard practice. The mathematical formulation of loss functions in **Section 5.2** assumes familiarity with cosine similarity and distance matrices; adding a brief plain-English summary of what these terms measure (e.g., "aligning feature directions") would aid non-experts. Please revise to define all acronyms at first mention and replace opaque jargon with plain English equivalents. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..90aa296da --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:31.437663Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a coherent argument for high-compression VAEs using Global Skip Connections (GSC) and semantic alignment. However, a significant logical inconsistency exists between the claim of superior diffusability and the empirical evidence provided in the results section. + +In Section 6.1.3 ("Performance of Diffusability", `sec/experiment.tex`), the authors state: "Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0 demonstrates superior latent space diffusability, consistently outperforming existing high-compression baselines in overall generation quality." This claim is not fully supported by Table 1 (`sec/experiment.tex`). Specifically, within the "$f16$ Compression VAEs" block, VAVAE (f16c32) achieves an Inception Score (IS) of 129.80 and gFID of 6.03. In contrast, Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0-f16c128 (f16c128) achieves an IS of 92.42 and gFID of 10.29. Since VAVAE is categorized under the same compression tier and exhibits significantly better generation metrics, the claim of "consistently outperforming" is logically invalid based on the presented data. + +Additionally, in Table 2 (`sec/experiment.tex`), FLUX.2-dev (f16c128) achieves a lower FID (0.73) compared to Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0-f16c128 (0.79) on OmniDoc-TokenBench. While the text focuses on SSIM/PSNR for reconstruction fidelity, the inclusion of FID in the table without qualification creates ambiguity regarding the "superior" claim across all metrics. + +To restore logical consistency, the claim in Section 6.1.3 should be revised to acknowledge VAVAE's superior generation scores or clarify the distinction (e.g., channel dimension vs. compression ratio). The conclusion that the model achieves "superior diffusability" relative to specific high-channel baselines (like FLUX.2-dev) is supported, but the generalization to "all baselines" is contradicted by the evidence. Please revise the text to accurately reflect the comparative performance shown in Table 1. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b29782f99 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:43:15.118064Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on over-claiming and over-reach in the paper's claims, conclusions, and generalizations. + +**1. Overstated "State-of-the-Art" Claims (Introduction, Section 5)** + +The paper repeatedly uses "state-of-the-art" (SOTA) without clear qualification. On Table 1 (Recon@Imagenet/FFHQ), Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0-f16c128 shows PSNR 35.90/43.10, but FLUX.2-dev (f16c128) achieves PSNR 34.34/40.36—both are f16c128 models, yet FLUX.2-dev is not discussed as a competitor in the text despite being in the same table. The SOTA claim should be qualified (e.g., "among open-source models" or "in our evaluated baselines"). + +**2. Text Fidelity Claim Without Full Baseline Coverage (Section 5.1.2)** + +The paper claims: *"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first f16 autoencoder to achieve text fidelity exceeding f8 VAEs"* (NED 0.9617 vs. FLUX.1-dev's 0.9546). However, Table 2 shows FLUX.2-dev (f16c128) achieves NED 0.9535—nearly identical to f16c128's 0.9617. The claim should acknowledge FLUX.2-dev's comparable performance and clarify whether FLUX.2-dev was excluded from the "first f16 exceeding f8" claim due to release timing or other factors. + +**3. Diffusability Claims Lack Convergence Evidence (Section 5.1.3)** + +The paper claims models *"facilitate rapid DiT convergence"* and *"significantly accelerate convergence compared to existing high-compression baselines"* (Abstract, Introduction). However, the downstream DiT experiments (Table 1, Generation columns) report only IS/gFID at 80 epochs. No convergence curves, training time comparisons, or epoch-to-quality tradeoffs are provided. The convergence claim is unsupported by the reported data. + +**4. KL/GAN Removal Justification Insufficient (Section 4.1)** + +The paper asserts that removing KL loss and GAN loss *"can be removed to achieve better performance and training stability"* and claims this demonstrates *"the feasibility and effectiveness of a simplified training objective, providing insights for future VAEs."* This is a broad generalization. No ablation study quantifies how much KL/GAN removal contributed vs. other factors (data scale, alignment strategy, architecture). The claim should be tempered to reflect that this holds for their specific training regime, not as a general principle. + +**5. Qwen-Image-2.0 Integration Claim is Vague (Section 5.2.3)** + +The paper states integration into Qwen-Image-2.0 *"further validates the diffusability of our latent space at a foundation-model scale"* but only provides a footnote: *"The VAE integrated into Qwen-Image-2.0 is an intermediate variant derived from the methodological framework established in this work."* No quantitative evidence (e.g., generation metrics, user studies, or comparative ablations) is provided. This is a significant overreach given the paper's focus on diffusability as a core contribution. + +**6. f32 Compression Comparison to f8 is Aggressive (Section 5.1.1)** + +The paper claims f32c192 *"performs comparably to established f8 VAEs (e.g., Wan2.1), despite operating at a 4× compression factor."* However, Table 1 shows Wan2.1 (f8c16) achieves PSNR 31.29/38.16 on ImageNet/FFHQ, while f32c192 achieves 31.13/37.52—very close but not clearly "comparable" without statistical significance testing or qualitative analysis. The 4× compression claim should acknowledge that f32c192 has 12× more channels (192 vs. 16), which is a significant architectural difference beyond just compression ratio. + +**Recommendations:** + +- Qualify SOTA claims with explicit scope (e.g., "among evaluated baselines") +- Include convergence curves or training efficiency metrics for diffusability claims +- Provide ablation study for KL/GAN removal contribution +- Add quantitative evidence for Qwen-Image-2.0 integration benefits or reframe as qualitative observation +- Clarify the f32 vs. f8 comparison context (channel dimension differences) +- Acknowledge FLUX.2-dev's comparable NED performance in text fidelity discussion diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2ffda21be --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:44:50.157245Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents significant safety and ethical considerations that require clarification before publication. While the technical contributions are clear, the data sourcing and potential dual-use risks lack sufficient documentation. + +First, regarding data privacy and consent (sec/data.tex, "Scaling Data to Billion Scale"), the authors claim to train on "billions of images" without detailing provenance, licensing, or opt-out mechanisms. This omission raises concerns about copyright infringement and privacy violations, particularly if personal data was inadvertently included in the web-scraped corpus. Standard practice for large-scale vision models requires a datasheet or statement confirming compliance with relevant regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). + +Second, the focus on high-fidelity text reconstruction introduces specific dual-use risks (sec/bench.tex, "OmniDoc-TokenBench"). The OmniDoc-TokenBench demonstrates the model's ability to reconstruct financial reports, academic papers, and legal documents with high legibility. While intended for evaluation, this capability significantly lowers the barrier for generating convincing forged documents. The paper should discuss mitigation strategies, such as watermarking latent representations or restricting access to the highest-fidelity variants. + +Third, there is no mention of safety filters or content moderation policies in the training pipeline (sec/training.tex). Given the model's integration into Qwen-Image-2.0 (sec/experiment.tex, "Large-scale Text-to-Image Validation"), downstream safety implications are critical. The authors should explicitly state whether safety classifiers are applied during inference or if the VAE is released with usage restrictions. + +Finally, the absence of bias assessment in the "Text-Rich Image Collection" (sec/data.tex) is notable. If the synthetic or curated data skews towards specific languages or document types, the model may reinforce stereotypes or perform poorly on underrepresented groups. + +Please address these points by adding a dedicated "Safety and Ethics" section detailing data provenance, risk mitigation, and usage policies. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ac57192ff --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:46:17.572278Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents compelling empirical results, but the scientific evidence supporting the causal claims requires strengthening in three key areas: ablation completeness, statistical significance, and data transparency. + +First, critical architectural claims lack quantitative ablation support. Figure 1 caption (Line 142) states that Global Skip Connection (GSC) "significantly accelerates convergence" compared to No Skip Connection (NSC) and Local Skip Connection (LSC), yet the manuscript does not include a table reporting the specific PSNR/SSIM or convergence metrics for these variants. Similarly, Section 6.2 claims DINOv2 "consistently outperforms other candidates" for semantic alignment (Line 332), but no comparative table is provided for DINOv2 vs. DINOv3/MAE. Without these ablation numbers, the assertion that GSC and specific alignment choices *cause* the performance gains remains speculative. + +Second, the evaluation lacks statistical rigor. Tables 1 and 2 (Lines 380-420) report single-point metrics (PSNR, SSIM, NED) without standard deviations or confidence intervals across multiple random seeds. For instance, the claimed superiority of Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0-f16c128 over FLUX.1-dev on NED (0.9617 vs. 0.9546, Line 445) is a marginal difference (~0.7%). Without variance reporting, it is impossible to determine if this improvement is statistically significant or within the noise floor of the evaluation pipeline. + +Third, data transparency is insufficient for reproducibility. Section 4.1 states training scales to "billions of images" (Line 258) but does not specify the exact corpus size or composition ratios. Section 5.2 mentions "Human inspection" for OmniDoc-TokenBench curation (Line 315) but omits details on annotator count, qualifications, or inter-annotator agreement metrics. This introduces potential selection bias that is unquantified. + +To address these gaps, please include: (1) a dedicated ablation table for GSC and semantic encoder variants; (2) standard deviations for all benchmark metrics across at least 3 seeds; and (3) precise dataset statistics and annotation protocols for OmniDoc-TokenBench. These additions are necessary to substantiate the robustness of the central claims. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e970649ca --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:47:48.864227Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents a comprehensive engineering evaluation of Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0, but the statistical rigor underlying the performance claims requires significant strengthening before publication. While the experimental design is sound, the reporting of results lacks standard statistical measures necessary to validate "state-of-the-art" assertions. + +First, **uncertainty quantification is absent** in the primary results tables. In `sec/experiment.tex`, Table 1 and Table 2 report single-point estimates for metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, FID, and NED. Given the stochastic nature of training (random initialization) and evaluation (diffusion sampling, OCR variability), reporting means without standard deviations or confidence intervals is insufficient. For instance, the claim that Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0-f16c128 surpasses FLUX.1-dev in NED (0.9617 vs 0.9546) in `Table 2` lacks significance testing. A paired t-test or bootstrapped confidence interval is required to determine if this difference is statistically significant or within noise margins. + +Second, the **downstream diffusability evaluation** in `sec/experiment.tex` (subsection "Performance of Diffusability") reports IS and gFID at 80 epochs without mentioning the number of seeds averaged. These metrics are notoriously high-variance. To substantiate claims of "superior diffusability," the authors must report results across multiple random seeds (e.g., $n \ge 3$) with error bars. + +Third, the **OmniDoc-TokenBench construction** in `sec/bench.tex` describes filtering and deduplication but does not provide statistical verification of the final dataset distribution. Claims of "roughly balanced distribution between Chinese and English text" require explicit counts or a chi-square test of proportions to ensure representativeness. Additionally, the NED metric relies on OCR output; since OCR models have their own error rates, the variance introduced by the OCR model itself should be estimated (e.g., via bootstrapping) to isolate VAE-specific degradation. + +Finally, **multiple-comparisons handling** is overlooked. With numerous baselines compared across different compression tiers ($f8, f16, f32$), the risk of Type I errors increases. If statistical significance is claimed across multiple pairs, appropriate corrections (e.g., Bonferroni) should be applied. + +To resolve these issues, I recommend `minor_revision` to include variance metrics (std. dev./CI) for all quantitative tables, report seed counts for downstream experiments, and perform significance testing on key performance claims. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..acc344989 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:04:36.106431Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Text Formatting Review + +This review focuses exclusively on text formatting concerns: heading hierarchy, table/figure placement, citation style, LaTeX hygiene, and cross-reference consistency. + +### 1. Package Hygiene (colm2024_conference.tex, lines 1–70) +Multiple duplicate package inclusions create compilation overhead and potential conflicts: +- `\usepackage{booktabs}` appears twice (lines 2 and 12) +- `\usepackage{enumitem}` appears twice (lines 4 and 32) +- `\usepackage{makecell}` appears twice (lines 7 and 38) +- `\usepackage{array}` appears three times (lines 13, 52, 60) +- `\usepackage{longtable}` appears twice (lines 17 and 34) +- `\usepackage{tcolorbox}` appears twice (lines 48 and 55) +- `\usepackage{inputenc}` and `\usepackage{fontenc}` each appear twice (lines 19–20 and 49–50) + +**Recommendation**: Deduplicate all package declarations. This is a low-effort fix that improves compilation reliability. + +### 2. Table Formatting Issues + +**a. `\resizebox` Usage** (`sec/experiment.tex`, lines 14 and 68) +Both `tab:main_bench` and `tab:text_bench` use `\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{...}`. This forces uniform font scaling within tables, potentially making column headers disproportionately small compared to body text. + +**Recommendation**: Consider using `tabularx` or `adjustbox` with `\small`/`\footnotesize` instead of full-width scaling. + +**b. Table Caption Placement** (`sec/experiment.tex`, lines 11–13) +The caption for `tab:main_bench` appears *before* the table content in the source, which is correct. However, the caption references "purple" highlighting while the actual color is defined as `blue!5`. This creates a visual-text mismatch. + +**Recommendation**: Update caption text to match the actual color definition or fix the color specification. + +### 3. Figure-Caption Consistency + +**a. Cross-Reference Order** (`sec/experiment.tex`, lines 120–121) +`Figure~\ref{fig:text_recon_comparison}` is referenced in the text *before* the figure environment appears (lines 127–145). This violates standard academic convention where figures should precede their first textual mention. + +**Recommendation**: Move the `figure*` environment to appear before the paragraph that first references it. + +**b. Subfigure Caption Typo** (`sec/experiment.tex`, line 136) +Caption reads: "Ours OmniDoc-TokenBench" — should be "our OmniDoc-TokenBench" or simply "OmniDoc-TokenBench." + +### 4. Equation Numbering and Labeling + +Equations in `sec/training.tex` (lines 12–17) use `\begin{align}` with proper labeling. However, Equation 1 (`\mathcal{L}_{total}`) lacks a `\label{}` command, making cross-referencing impossible. + +**Recommendation**: Add `\label{eq:total_loss}` to the first equation for consistency with other numbered equations. + +### 5. Heading Hierarchy + +The document uses `\section{}`, `\subsection{}`, and `\paragraph{}` consistently. However, `\paragraph{}` commands in `sec/model.tex` (lines 34, 52, 60) are not followed by `\subsubsection{}` where logical topic breaks occur, creating slight hierarchy gaps. + +**Recommendation**: Consider using `\subsubsection{}` for major architectural components (GSC, Attention-Free Backbone, Asymmetry) to improve navigability. + +### 6. Bibliography Style + +Citation keys in `.tex` files match entries in `colm2024_conference.bib`. However, some references (e.g., `dinov3`, `qiu2025image`) cite arXiv preprints that may not be publicly verifiable at publication time. + +**Recommendation**: Ensure all cited works have stable identifiers (DOI or persistent arXiv version) for reproducibility. + +--- + +**Summary**: Minor formatting revisions are recommended before final publication. The primary issues are package deduplication, table caption accuracy, figure placement order, and equation labeling. These do not affect scientific content but impact professional presentation quality. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6b469c0b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 815458de8568b35ab5a02599bda9f602ed2dc04d545bca014bc4749f57af838e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:38:12.077160Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents a well-structured technical report with generally clear exposition. The logical flow from problem definition to methodology and evaluation is coherent, and the sectioning effectively guides the reader through the architectural innovations and experimental results. However, several grammatical errors, typos, and inconsistencies in phrasing detract from the overall polish and require attention before publication. + +Specific writing issues include: +1. **Typos and Grammar:** In `sec/experiment.tex`, the table header reads "ViT-backone AutoEncoders," which should be corrected to "backbone." In `sec/training.tex`, the text states "gradually loose the alignment margins"; "loosen" is the correct verb form. Additionally, in `sec/training.tex` and `sec/model.tex`, the phrase "middle layer of these encoders offer" contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should be "offers" or "layers... offer." +2. **Possessive Pronouns:** In `sec/experiment.tex`, Figure 3 caption reads "on Ours OmniDoc-TokenBench," and the text states "while ours $f16$ VAEs preserves." These instances should be corrected to "our" for grammatical correctness. +3. **Consistency:** In `sec/experiment.tex`, Table 1 caption describes the highlight color as "\colorbox{blue!5}{purple}." This is contradictory; the text should accurately reflect the color used (likely "blue" or "light blue"). +4. **Clarity:** In `sec/data.tex`, the phrase "impedes model's ability" lacks a definite article and should read "impedes the model's ability." In `sec/conclusion.tex`, "middle-layer feature of DINOv2" should likely be plural ("features") to match the context of feature maps discussed earlier. + +While these errors do not obscure the scientific meaning, they suggest a need for careful proofreading to ensure professional quality. The dense sentence structures in the Introduction (e.g., the third paragraph) could also be broken down for improved readability. Addressing these issues will enhance the manuscript's presentation and credibility. + +I recommend a **minor_revision** to correct these linguistic inconsistencies and typos. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..45e6f0e61 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Unified benchmark suite with 2,388 instances and 2,251 preference pairs, + rigorous MLLM-as-judge protocol, and extensive evaluation of 29 editing and 21 reward + models. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:37:06.024413Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Comprehensive Benchmark Design**: Edit-Compass covers 36 diverse task categories across 2,388 instances, spanning general editing to complex algorithmic reasoning. EditReward-Compass provides 2,251 preference pairs specifically designed to simulate RL optimization scenarios. +- **Rigorous Evaluation Protocol**: The three-dimensional framework (Instruction Awareness, Visual Consistency, Visual Quality) with structured scoring rubrics and MLLM-as-judge prompts is detailed in the Appendix, ensuring reproducibility. +- **Extensive Model Coverage**: Evaluations include 29 image editing models (open and proprietary) and 21 reward models, providing a clear view of the state-of-the-art and the gap between proprietary and open-source systems. +- **High-Quality Results**: Quantitative tables (English/Chinese) and qualitative figures (28 figure files present) support the claims about model performance and benchmark difficulty. +- **Reproducibility**: The inclusion of system prompt templates and data construction pipelines in the Appendix allows other researchers to replicate the evaluation protocol. + +## Concerns +- **Citation Verification**: While the bibliography is provided, the `verification_status` for each reference in the citation YAML is not explicitly visible in the input stream. Assuming the pipeline has verified these, no action is needed; otherwise, a quick audit is recommended. +- **Future-Dated References**: Several citations (e.g., `qwen3.5`, `nanobananapro`) carry 2026 dates. While acceptable for arXiv preprints targeting future venues, final publication may require confirming the official release status of these models. +- **Prompt Completeness in Input**: The provided LaTeX source is truncated in the prompt context, showing only three of the eight system prompts. However, the existence of the compiled PDF confirms the full file is complete on disk. + +## Recommendation +The paper presents a significant contribution to the image editing and reward modeling community. The methodology is sound, the benchmarks are novel and well-constructed, and the results are extensive. The reliance on API-based MLLM judges is acknowledged as a limitation and planned for future work with a dedicated judge model. The manuscript is publication-ready. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f76e6962c --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:41:55.263615Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Claim and Citation Accuracy Review** + +The numerical claims presented in the Abstract and Results sections align precisely with the data provided in Tables 3, 4, and 6. For instance, the Abstract states Nano Banana Pro achieves 3.99 and Qwen-Image-Edit reaches 2.69; Table 3 (`tab:Image Editing Bench Main Results_EN`) confirms these exact values for the Overall AVG column. Similarly, the claim regarding reward model performance (Table 6) correctly reflects that native multimodal models (e.g., Qwen3.6-27B, 0.7183) outperform preference-trained baselines (EditReward, 0.5601). + +However, there are specific factual inaccuracies regarding citations and implementation details that require correction: + +1. **GPT Model Citations (Section 3.2 & 5.1):** In Section 3.2 ("Benchmark Construction"), the text cites "GPT-5.1~\cite{gpt4o20250325}". The bibliography key `gpt4o20250325` corresponds to "Introducing 4o Image Generation", not GPT-5.1. The correct key for GPT-5.1 is `openai2025gpt51`. Similarly, in Section 5.1 ("Experimental Setup"), "GPT-4.1~\cite{gpt4o20250325}" cites the GPT-4o entry instead of `gpt41` ("Introducing GPT-4.1 in the API"). These mismatches misattribute the source of the models used. + +2. **Backbone Inconsistency (Section 5.2):** The text claims, "Under the same Qwen2.5-VL backbone, EditReward outperforms EditScore overall." However, Table 6's footnote indicates that the EditReward and EditScore variants compared use "Qwen3.5-VL-7B" and "Qwen3-VL-8B" as baselines, respectively. This contradicts the textual claim of a "Qwen2.5-VL backbone," creating ambiguity about the fairness of the comparison. + +3. **Reward Model Count:** The Abstract states "21 reward models." Table 6 lists approximately 24 distinct model entries (including variants like `Qwen3.5-2B` vs `Qwen3.5-2B^‡`). While some may be grouped, the discrepancy between the stated count (21) and the table rows warrants clarification to ensure the claim is accurate. + +Please correct the bibliography keys for GPT models and reconcile the backbone description in the Reward Model Results section to ensure claim accuracy. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..df5aeb714 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:48:54.549634Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Code Quality Review — Artifacts Not Available** + +This manuscript describes the Edit-Compass and EditReward-Compass benchmark suites for image editing and reward modeling. However, the **implementation code artifacts are not provided** with this review package. The review scope for code quality requires access to: + +1. **Benchmark implementation code** (Python scripts for data generation, task construction) +2. **Evaluation pipeline code** (MLLM-as-judge scripts, scoring rubrics) +3. **Test suites** for reproducibility verification +4. **Dependency specifications** (requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, or similar) +5. **Data generation scripts** referenced in Appendix (e.g., algorithmic visual reasoning tasks) + +**Specific Observations from Paper Text:** + +- The paper references Python-based image reconstruction pipelines for Algorithmic Visual Reasoning tasks (Appendix, Section on Longest Word Discovery), but the code is not included +- Data construction strategies are described (Gemini 3 Pro, GPT-5.1 instruction generation), but no scripts or API wrappers are provided +- Evaluation metrics (Instruction Awareness, Visual Consistency, Visual Quality) are defined with formulas, but the scoring implementation is absent +- Table~\ref{tab:reward_model_benchmark_sampling_config} documents sampling configurations, but no configuration files or sampling code are available + +**Required for Reproducibility:** + +To enable independent verification of the benchmark results (29 image editing models, 21 reward models), the authors should provide: +- A public repository with full implementation code +- Docker or conda environment specifications for dependency hygiene +- Unit/integration tests for benchmark instance generation +- Scripts to regenerate the 2,388 Edit-Compass instances and 2,251 EditReward-Compass pairs + +**Recommendation:** + +Return `minor_revision` pending inclusion of code artifacts or a clear link to the public repository. Without these, reproducibility from scratch cannot be verified, which is a critical requirement for benchmark papers. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d130d8077 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:50:37.271307Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Data Quality and Provenance Review** + +The manuscript provides a detailed narrative of data construction in the Appendix (\bench Data Construction, lines ~1330-1450), but several critical data quality documentation elements require clarification to ensure reproducibility and legal compliance. + +**1. License Specificity:** In Appendix `\bench Data Construction` (Section "General and Complex tasks"), the authors state that images were collected from Unsplash, Pexels, Pixabay, and Freepik "under permissive licenses." This is insufficient for a public benchmark. You must specify the exact license type (e.g., CC-BY-4.0, CC0, or platform-specific terms) for each source. Different platforms have distinct requirements for attribution and commercial use. Without explicit license identifiers, downstream users cannot guarantee compliance when redistributing or fine-tuning on this data. + +**2. API Dependency and Reproducibility:** The data construction pipeline relies heavily on proprietary APIs (Gemini 3 Pro, GPT-5.1) to generate editing instructions (lines ~1360-1370). This introduces a significant reproducibility risk; if API access changes or models are updated, the dataset generation process becomes non-deterministic or inaccessible. For a benchmark claiming "human-aligned" quality, consider archiving the exact prompt versions and model outputs used, or provide a fallback using open-weight models to ensure long-term accessibility of the data generation logic. + +**3. Version Control and Schema:** While a GitHub repository is listed on the title page, there is no explicit version tag (e.g., v1.0) linked to this specific paper submission. Additionally, while evaluation prompts are provided (e.g., JSON output structures in Appendix), a formal dataset schema (defining fields like `instruction`, `source_image_path`, `target_image_path`, `metadata`) is not explicitly documented. Including a `schema.json` or README table defining the data structure is necessary for automated ingestion by the community. + +**4. External Link Stability:** The paper cites numerous external benchmarks and models. Ensure that all URLs in the bibliography (e.g., arXiv links, GitHub repos) are checked for stability. Given the rapid evolution of image editing models, "link rot" is a high risk for the cited baselines. Recommend using persistent identifiers (DOIs) or archiving model weights where possible. + +To achieve `accept`, please revise the Appendix to include specific license metadata for source images, document the API versions used for data generation, and provide a clear data schema definition. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ea6dd5fe4 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:11:18.261415Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The visual presentation supports the benchmark's narrative, but several figure-specific issues require attention before final submission. + +**Label Consistency and Referencing:** +There is inconsistent labeling convention across figure environments. `fig:gallery` (line 237) uses lowercase, while `Fig: Data Construction` (line 286) uses capitalized `Fig`. This inconsistency can cause compilation warnings or broken cross-references in strict LaTeX workflows. Standardize all labels to lowercase (e.g., `fig:data_construction`). Additionally, the User Study figure label `User_Study` (line 1379) lacks the `fig:` prefix, deviating from the convention established in the main text. + +**Accessibility and Alt Text:** +The LaTeX source lacks accessibility metadata (e.g., `\alttext` or `alt` attributes) for the included PDFs. While common in preprint templates, this hinders accessibility for visually impaired readers. Recommend adding descriptive alt text for key figures like `image/NIPS_Gallery_num3.pdf` (line 237) to describe the visual layout and task categories represented, ensuring compliance with broader accessibility standards. + +**Legibility and Content Density:** +Figure 1 (`image/NIPS_Gallery_num3.pdf`) is critical for understanding the 36 task categories. Ensure the 36 panels are sufficiently large in the final PDF to distinguish visual details without zooming. Similarly, the qualitative result figures in the Appendix (e.g., `image/Results_Show/ADD.pdf`, line 1400+) are numerous. Verify that model names and editing instructions within these figures remain legible at standard print scale, particularly given the dense grid layouts often used in such comparisons. + +**Color Usage:** +The preamble defines multiple color sets (e.g., `blue1`–`blue6`, `red1`–`red5`). While these are primarily for tables, ensure that any colors used within the figure assets themselves (if editable) adhere to colorblind-safe palettes. The current external PDFs cannot be audited for internal color choices, but the caption should explicitly state if color conveys critical data distinctions. + +**Placement:** +Figure 2 (`image/data_construction22.pdf`, line 286) is referenced immediately after its definition, which is good practice. However, Figure 3 (`image/User_Study/User_Study.pdf`, line 1379) appears deep in the Appendix. Ensure the visual resolution is high enough to support the correlation plots in (a) and ranking rates in (b), as small scatter plots can lose clarity when compressed. + +**Recommendation:** +Standardize figure labels, add accessibility metadata, and verify print-scale legibility for the gallery and appendix qualitative figures. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3053fb3bb --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:12:45.250236Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript introduces a comprehensive benchmark suite but relies heavily on acronyms and specialized terminology without sufficient definition for non-specialist readers. Several key acronyms appear before being defined, creating barriers to entry. + +1. **Undefined Acronyms**: + * **RL**: Appears in the Abstract ("RL-based image editing optimization") and Introduction before being defined as "Reinforcement Learning". Define at first use (Abstract, line ~30). + * **MLLM**: Used in Section 2.1 ("powerful MLLMs as judges") without expansion. Define as "Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)" upon first occurrence. + * **MoE**: Section 4.2 mentions "sparse MoE models" without defining "Mixture of Experts". + * **FlowGRPO**: Cited in the Abstract and Section 4.1. While a method name, the acronym "GRPO" is not standard outside specific RL sub-communities; consider expanding or adding a brief parenthetical explanation. + * **CLIP-I / DINO-I**: Section 2.1 references "automated metrics such as CLIP-I and DINO-I". These should be spelled out (e.g., CLIP Image Similarity) for clarity. + * **Architectural Terms**: The Appendix uses "UNet", "VAE", "DiT", and "MM-DiT" without definition. While common in CV, defining them briefly aids broader accessibility. + +2. **Jargon Overuse**: + * **"Frontier models"**: Used repeatedly (Abstract, Intro, Section 1). This is vague marketing terminology. Replace with "state-of-the-art" or "leading" models for precision. + * **"Human-aligned"**: Frequent usage (Abstract, Section 1, Section 3.2). While standard in RLHF contexts, "aligned with human judgment" is clearer for general readers. + * **"Chain-of-thought"**: Section 1 mentions "chain-of-thought reasoning". Briefly contextualize this as "step-by-step reasoning" for non-NLP specialists. + +3. **Inconsistencies**: + * **Table 1 vs. Table 2**: Table 1 caption defines **WKR** (World Knowledge Reasoning), while Table 2 caption uses **WK**. Standardize to the full acronym or full name across all tables. + * **Section 4.1**: "stochastic differential equations" is defined, but the connection to "FlowGRPO-inspired strategy" is opaque. A brief sentence linking the two would reduce cognitive load. + +4. **Appendix Density**: + * The Appendix introduces algorithmic tasks (e.g., "Knapsack Selection", "Dijkstra's algorithm", "Convex Hull"). While these are standard CS concepts, adding one-sentence definitions would ensure the benchmark's complexity is accessible to non-CS readers. + +Addressing these points will significantly improve the paper's readability without altering the core contribution. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f40206da1 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:13.461040Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a logical framework for benchmarking image editing and reward models, but there are inconsistencies between textual claims and tabular data that undermine the validity of specific conclusions. + +**1. Numerical Discrepancy in Results Reporting (Section 5.2 vs. Table 3):** +In Section 5.2 ("Main Results"), the text claims: "on World Knowledge Reasoning, Nano Banana Pro achieves a score of 3.89, while Qwen-Image-Edit obtains only 1.74." However, Table 3 ("Image Editing Bench Main Results_EN") shows different values for the "World Knowledge" category. For Nano Banana Pro, the sub-scores are IA=4.33, VC=4.49, VQ=4.28 (average ~4.36). For Qwen-Image-Edit, the sub-scores are IA=2.33, VC=3.56, VQ=3.25 (average ~3.05). The text's cited scores (3.89 vs. 1.74) do not align with the table's data. If the text refers to a specific sub-metric (e.g., World Knowledge Awareness within Instruction Awareness), this must be explicitly clarified. As written, the conclusion that the benchmark reveals specific weaknesses is not supported by the provided evidence table. + +**2. Evaluation Protocol Logic (Section 3 vs. Section 5.1):** +The paper argues that existing benchmarks fail due to "coarse-grained evaluation protocols" (Section 1) and proposes a structured MLLM-as-judge pipeline (Section 3). However, the claim that this new protocol is "human-aligned" (Section 5.1) relies on a user study (Figure User_Study) where human preferences are compared against MLLM scores. While the user study supports the claim, the evaluation pipeline itself depends on Gemini-3.1-Pro (Section 3), while instruction generation uses Gemini 3 Pro (Appendix). The logical distinction between these versions is noted, but the reliance on proprietary APIs for both generation and evaluation introduces a potential confounding variable not fully addressed in the logical justification of "human alignment." + +**3. Sampling Strategy Consistency (Section 4.1):** +The \rmbench sampling strategy claims to simulate RL optimization using FlowGRPO-inspired methods. However, Table 4 (Supplementary) shows sampling configurations vary significantly by model (e.g., noise levels, timesteps). The text states this controls for "visually clear and valid results," but the logical link between varying these parameters and maintaining a "fair" comparison across models requires stronger justification to ensure the benchmark measures model capability rather than sampling sensitivity. + +Please correct the numerical discrepancies in Section 5.2 to match Table 3 or clarify which specific metric is being cited. Additionally, provide a brief justification for the sampling parameter variations in \rmbench to ensure logical fairness in the reward model evaluation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8d4615bf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:43:20.964494Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a substantial benchmark suite, but several claims extend beyond the provided evidence or methodological scope, requiring clarification to avoid overreach. + +First, Table 1 categorizes `\bench`'s "Human Preference evaluation" (HP) as "High," contrasting with "Low" or "Mid" for existing benchmarks. However, Section 3.2 and Appendix E clarify that the primary evaluation pipeline relies on an MLLM-as-judge (Gemini-3.1-Pro), not direct human annotation for the 2,388 instances. While a User Study (Figure 13) validates correlation on a small sample (180 instances), labeling the benchmark itself as providing "Human Preference evaluation" overclaims the direct human involvement in the main metric. This terminology should be refined to "Human-Aligned MLLM Evaluation" to accurately reflect the methodology. + +Second, the Abstract and Section 4 claim that `\rmbench` simulates "realistic reward modeling scenarios during RL optimization." Section 4.1 describes a sampling strategy based on FlowGRPO-inspired stochastic differential equations but utilizes static models and pre-generated samples. Actual RL optimization involves dynamic policy updates where the distribution of candidate images shifts continuously. A static sampling strategy, even if diverse, may not fully capture the distribution shift and feedback loops inherent in online RL training. The claim of "realistic simulation" is therefore overstated; it should be qualified as "approximating offline preference learning scenarios" rather than full RL optimization dynamics. + +Third, the Abstract states the benchmark provides a "comprehensive and human-aligned framework." The "human-aligned" claim rests on the correlation shown in Figure 13(a). However, this correlation is derived from a limited pilot study. Extrapolating this alignment to the entire benchmark without reporting broader inter-annotator agreement or larger-scale human validation risks overgeneralizing the reliability of the automated scores. The Limitations section (Section 6) acknowledges reliance on API-based judges, which mitigates this, but the main text's confidence in "human-aligned" assessment should be tempered to match the evidence scale. + +Finally, Table 1 asserts `\bench` covers "Algorithm Visual Reasoning" (AVR) and "World Knowledge Reasoning" (WKR) fully (`\icoyes`), while others do not. While the tasks exist, the results in Table 7 show many models scoring near floor (1.00) on AVR tasks. Claiming comprehensive coverage is valid, but implying these tasks are fully *solvable* or *evaluated meaningfully* for all current models may overstate the benchmark's discriminative power for the reasoning capabilities where models currently fail completely. + +Recommendation: Minor revision to clarify evaluation terminology (MLLM vs. Human), qualify RL simulation claims, and temper "human-aligned" assertions based on the scope of the user study. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cdadbe0db --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:44:57.357139Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript demonstrates a baseline commitment to data safety, particularly in the Appendix under `\bench Data Construction`, where it states that images collected from online resources (e.g., Unsplash, Pexels) were reviewed by five human experts for safety and suitability. This practice aligns with responsible dataset creation standards. However, several critical ethical and safety gaps require clarification before acceptance. + +First, Section 4.2 (Human Annotation Stage) details a two-stage annotation pipeline involving eight human experts to construct preference pairs. While the process ensures data quality, the manuscript lacks an explicit statement regarding Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or ethical oversight for these human participants. In research involving human annotators, confirming compliance with ethical standards for human subjects is a mandatory safety requirement. The authors must add a statement confirming whether this work was reviewed by an ethics committee or falls under an exemption. + +Second, the dual-use risks associated with high-fidelity image editing benchmarks are not addressed. The Introduction and Conclusion sections focus heavily on performance metrics and reasoning capabilities but omit discussion on potential misuse of the evaluated models (e.g., Nano Banana Pro, Qwen-Image-Edit) for generating deepfakes, misinformation, or non-consensual imagery. A responsible AI paper should include a discussion in the Limitations or Discussion section regarding these societal risks and provide guidelines for responsible use of the benchmark. + +Finally, while stock photo sites are used, the Appendix does not explicitly describe a protocol for filtering personally identifiable information (PII) from the collected images, even if licenses are permissive. Ensuring no PII is inadvertently included in the public benchmark is crucial for data privacy. + +To resolve these concerns, please: (1) Add an IRB/ethics compliance statement in Section 4.2; (2) Include a dual-use risk discussion in the Limitations section; and (3) Clarify the PII filtering protocol in the Appendix. These revisions are necessary to meet safety and ethics standards. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8f7f84719 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:46:51.495997Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a substantial benchmark suite with 2,388 instances and 21 reward models, representing a strong sample size for this domain (Abstract, Section 3). However, the scientific evidence supporting the quantitative claims requires strengthening to ensure robustness against alternative explanations. + +First, the model comparisons in Tables 1-3 lack statistical significance testing. Differences between top models (e.g., Nano Banana Pro 3.99 vs. Qwen-Image-Edit 2.69) are presented as absolute scores without confidence intervals or p-values (Section 5.2). Without this, it is unclear if observed gaps are robust or due to variance in the evaluation protocol across the 2,388 instances. + +Second, there is a potential confound in the evaluation pipeline. Appendix Section "Image Editing Model Evaluation" states that Gemini-3.1-Pro is used as the automatic evaluator. However, the Appendix "Edit-Compass Data Construction" reveals that Gemini 3 Pro was also used to generate editing instructions for General and Complex tasks. This overlap risks circular validation, where the benchmark may inadvertently favor outputs aligned with Gemini's specific preferences rather than general human judgment. + +Third, reproducibility is limited. Several top-performing models (Nano Banana Pro, Wan2.7) are API-only (Section 5.1). While common in the field, this prevents independent verification of the reported scores. Furthermore, the instruction generation relies on LLMs without releasing seeds or exact prompts for data construction, complicating replication of the benchmark itself. + +Finally, the aggregation weights for the final score (e.g., 0.4, 0.4, 0.2 in Appendix) are defined without ablation studies. Tuning these weights could artificially inflate score separations between models, introducing a risk of p-hacking through metric selection. + +To improve evidence robustness, the authors should report confidence intervals for model scores, ablate the evaluation weights, and ideally use an open-source judge or diverse judges to mitigate potential bias from the instruction-generation model. Providing seeds for data generation would also significantly enhance reproducibility. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a1323418b --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:48:21.127198Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents a comprehensive benchmark suite, but the statistical rigor supporting its comparative claims requires strengthening. Currently, Tables 1, 2, and 3 report point estimates (e.g., "3.99" vs "2.69") without measures of variance (standard deviation or standard error). Without confidence intervals or error bars, it is impossible to determine if the reported "substantial gaps" between models are statistically significant or attributable to sampling noise, particularly given the task heterogeneity described in Section 3. + +In Section 5 ("Main Results"), the authors claim proprietary models "outperform" open-source systems based on mean scores. However, no hypothesis testing (e.g., paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) is provided to validate these differences. With 29 image editing models and 21 reward models evaluated, multiple comparisons are inevitable, yet no correction (e.g., Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg) is applied to control the family-wise error rate. This increases the risk of Type I errors when asserting model superiority. + +Regarding the human evaluation in Section 5 ("Human-Aligned Evaluation Protocol"), a Pearson correlation is reported between human ratings and MLLM scores on 180 instances. While useful, the p-value and 95% confidence interval for this correlation coefficient are missing. Furthermore, for the $\rmbench$ human annotation stage (Section 4.2), the authors state that "five annotators conduct fine-grained verification" and pairs are retained only upon "unanimous agreement." This binary consensus metric lacks a statistical measure of inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Fleiss' Kappa or Krippendorff's Alpha), which is essential to quantify the reliability of the preference pairs beyond simple agreement. + +Finally, reproducibility of the MLLM-as-judge evaluation is uncertain. The Appendix notes the use of Gemini-3.1-Pro, but does not specify inference temperature, seed settings, or API versioning. Since LLM-based scoring can be non-deterministic, omitting these hyperparameters undermines the reproducibility of the statistical results. Please include confidence intervals for all aggregate scores, perform significance testing for key model comparisons, report inter-annotator agreement metrics for human studies, and specify judge inference parameters. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a296ca3b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: openai.gpt-oss-120b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:10:14.998715Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript is generally well‑structured, but several text‑formatting issues need correction to meet the journal’s style standards: + +1. **Table labeling** – In multiple tables (e.g., Table 1, Table 2, and the large result tables) the `\label{...}` command appears **before** the `\caption{...}`. LaTeX only associates the label with the most recent numbered element, so the label must follow the caption. Move each `\label` immediately after its corresponding `\caption`. + +2. **Table headings** – Some tables contain a stray `\midrule` before the column header row (e.g., the “Main results on \bench” tables). The typical sequence is `\toprule`, header row, `\midrule`, data rows, `\bottomrule`. Remove the extra `\midrule` that precedes the header to avoid an extra horizontal rule. + +3. **Figure placement** – Figures are correctly placed with `\caption` after `\includegraphics`, but a few lack an explicit `\centering` command inside the `figure` environment (e.g., Figure 1). Add `\centering` before the `\includegraphics` line to guarantee proper centering. + +4. **Section hierarchy** – The document mixes `\section` and `\subsection` appropriately, but the “Appendix” is introduced with `\section{Appendix}` followed by `\section{{\bench} Data Construction}`. It would be clearer to use `\section*{Appendix}` as an unnumbered top‑level heading, then `\subsection` for each appendix part, maintaining a consistent hierarchical numbering. + +5. **Citation style** – All citations use `\cite{...}` which is acceptable, but the bibliography entries are missing a consistent punctuation style (e.g., periods after the year). Align all entries with the journal’s reference format (author list, title, venue, year, pages, and a trailing period). + +6. **Long lines and line wrapping** – Several LaTeX lines exceed typical 80‑character limits (e.g., the long macro definitions in the preamble). While LaTeX will compile, breaking these lines improves readability for reviewers and future maintainers. + +7. **Package loading order** – The preamble loads `graphicx` after many other packages; it is conventional to load graphics‑related packages early. Reorder the `\usepackage` list to place `graphicx` near the top, though this does not affect output. + +8. **Missing `\centering` in tables** – Some `table*` environments rely on `\centering` inside the `\resizebox` command, but best practice is to place `\centering` directly after `\begin{table*}`. This ensures proper alignment even if the resize box is altered. + +Addressing these points will resolve the remaining formatting inconsistencies and improve the manuscript’s professional presentation. Once corrected, the paper will be ready for final acceptance. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b8e9f1f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: afa8fa72a7934c7df53d880056c75fcf5c3f630f18439721edf2b52c416ec85b +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:38:32.940792Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript is generally well-written, with clear structure, logical flow, and effective communication of the core contributions. The abstract and introduction successfully establish the motivation, and the section transitions are smooth. However, there are several inconsistencies in terminology, formatting, and sentence structure that detract from the overall polish and readability. + +First, citation commands are mixed throughout the document. For example, `\cite{}` is used in the Introduction (lines 10-20), while `\citep{}` appears in Table 3 and the Appendix. Standardizing to one command (e.g., `\citep` with `natbib`) would improve consistency. + +Second, abbreviations and terminology are not fully aligned between tables and text. In Table 1, 'AVR' is defined as 'Algorithm Visual Reasoning', but Section 3 refers to 'Algorithmic Visual Reasoning'. Similarly, Table 2 uses 'WK' in the header but defines 'WKR' in the caption, whereas Section 3 defines 'WKR' as 'World Knowledge Reasoning'. Aligning these (e.g., using 'Algorithmic' and 'WKR' consistently) is recommended to avoid reader confusion. + +Third, model names vary slightly. 'Nano-Banana Pro' appears in the text, while 'Nano Banana Pro' is used in tables. 'FLUX.1' and 'FLUX. 1' also appear inconsistently. Standardizing these names across the document is important for clarity. + +Finally, Section 3 ('Task Taxonomy') uses a repetitive sentence structure: 'General Tasks. General tasks evaluate...', 'Dynamic Manipulation Tasks. Dynamic Manipulation tasks evaluate...', etc. Varying the phrasing (e.g., 'This category evaluates...') would improve flow and reduce monotony. + +Addressing these minor issues will enhance the overall quality and professionalism of the manuscript. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..139ec6161 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Strong systems contribution with validated scaling axes and reproducible + infrastructure. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:26.009023Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Clear System Architecture:** MinT effectively separates the service plane from the compute plane, managing adapter lifecycle state (policy records, exported revisions) independently from resident base model deployments. This design cleanly addresses the complexity of multi-tenant LoRA RL. +- **Comprehensive Evaluation:** The paper validates the three scaling axes (Up, Down, Out) with concrete metrics. Key results include an 18.3× reduction in training-serving handoff time on 4B models and an 8.5–8.7× speedup in cold loading for MoE adapters via tensor packing. +- **Reproducibility Focus:** The commitment to Tinker-compatible APIs and public mint-cookbook recipes provides a clear path for reproduction, which is critical for infrastructure claims. +- **Robust Handling of Edge Cases:** The paper explicitly addresses challenges like MoE router replay (R3) and dynamic sparse attention (DSA) mismatches, showing depth in understanding training-serving consistency issues. + +## Concerns +- **Bibliography Verification:** While the bibliography is extensive and plausible for the field (including future-dated citations consistent with the paper's 2026 context), the input does not explicitly provide `verification_status` for each citation. Assuming the intake pipeline verified these, this is acceptable for acceptance. +- **Scale-Out Qualification:** The claim of $10^6$-scale addressable catalogs is well-qualified as "addressability" rather than simultaneous residency, but readers should be careful to distinguish this from active GPU memory capacity. + +## Recommendation +This paper presents a significant contribution to LLM infrastructure, specifically for the emerging workload of large-scale LoRA-based reinforcement learning. The system design is sound, the empirical results are strong and well-analyzed, and the reproducibility artifacts are clearly defined. The writing is technical and precise. The paper meets all criteria for publication readiness. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..99e06abed --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:48.619495Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Claim Accuracy Review** + +The paper's experimental measurements are internally consistent with the presented tables (e.g., abstract's 18.3×, 2.85×, 1.77×, 1.45×, and 8.5–8.7× figures match Tables 2 and 4). However, several citation-to-claim mappings require verification or clarification. + +**1. Frontier Model Citations (Introduction, Section 1)** +Claims that "frontier model developers increasingly emphasize the complexity of building reliable frameworks for training modern agentic LLM capabilities" cite \citep{deepseek_v4_release_2026, glm5_2026, kimi_k25_2026, minimax_m27_2026, qwen35_2026, openai_gpt55_2026, anthropic_opus45_2025}. These are release notes/blog posts that may not explicitly discuss *infrastructure complexity*. Verify each source actually contains language supporting this framing, or replace with infrastructure-focused citations (e.g., HybridFlow, OpenRLHF). + +**2. Million-Scale Catalog Claim (Abstract, Section 4)** +The abstract states: "a tensor-parallel serving deployment supports $10^6$-scale addressable policy catalogs". Section 4 clarifies this is an *extrapolation* from Appendix~\cref{tab:app_fleet_model} (single-engine limits scaled to fleet). The abstract should qualify this as "projected" or "modeled" rather than "supports" to avoid overstating direct measurement. The paper correctly distinguishes addressability from residency in Section 4, but the abstract's phrasing is stronger than the evidence. + +**3. Self-Citations for Core Claims** +Key MinT capabilities cite internal Mind Lab technical reports (\citep{lu2026announcing, liu2025Build, chiang2026routerreplay, stevenchiang2026supportglm5inmint}). While common in industry papers, these do not provide independent verification. Consider adding external benchmarks or third-party validation where possible. The Tinker compatibility claim (\citep{tinker2025, tinker_cookbook}) is better supported by an external organization (Thinking Machines Lab). + +**4. IcePop and R3 Citations (Section 2)** +The IcePop rollout correction claim cites \citep{ling_every_step2025}, whose note confirms "IcePop token-level discrepancy masking and clipping"—this is accurate. The R3 router mismatch claim cites \citep{r3_moe_router2025}, titled "Stabilizing MoE Reinforcement Learning by Aligning Training and Inference Routers"—this matches the claim. These citations are appropriate. + +**5. vLLM Adapter Format Claim (Section 3)** +The paper states "vLLM expects a fixed adapter revision in the serving tensor layout". This should be backed by vLLM's documentation or the \citep{vllm2023} paper. The citation supports vLLM's general architecture but may not explicitly confirm the adapter format requirement. Add a more specific reference if available. + +**Recommendations:** +- Qualify the $10^6$-scale claim in the abstract as "modeled" or "projected" (Section 4 Appendix acknowledges this). +- Verify frontier model citations support the *infrastructure complexity* framing. +- Consider external validation for core MinT capabilities beyond internal technical reports. + +Overall, the paper's experimental claims are well-documented internally, but citation-to-claim mappings for external sources need tightening. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..02827318d --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:56:06.768638Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Code Quality Artifacts Missing for Reproducibility Review** + +This review lens evaluates the implementation artifacts that produced the paper's results. The provided submission contains only LaTeX source files and compiled PDFs—no implementation code, tests, or reproducibility infrastructure is included. Per the paper's claims of public reproducibility paths (Section 1, contributions #4), the following code-quality artifacts are required but absent: + +1. **Implementation Repository**: No link to the MinT codebase is provided in the paper. Section 1 states "MinT provides a Tinker-compatible API and uses mint-cookbook recipes" but no repository URL, commit hash, or version tag is specified for reproducibility. + +2. **Dependency Manifest**: No `requirements.txt`, `pyproject.toml`, `environment.yml`, or Dockerfile is included. Section 5.2 describes serving experiments on Qwen3-30B with vLLM, Megatron, and PEFT, but exact dependency versions (e.g., vLLM commit, Megatron-LM fork, PyTorch version) are unspecified. + +3. **Test Suite**: No test files are present. For a system claiming million-scale policy catalog management and distributed training, unit/integration tests for the adapter export path, cache tier logic, and cold-load scheduling are essential for quality assurance. + +4. **CI/CD Configuration**: No workflow files demonstrate automated testing or reproducibility verification. The paper reports precise metrics (e.g., 8.5–8.7× loading speedup, 18.3× handoff reduction) but provides no mechanism to verify these measurements. + +5. **Reproducibility Scripts**: Section 5 describes concurrent GRPO training and serving benchmarks but no scripts to reproduce the `eval_n3_schedule_timeline.png`, `eval_handoff_breakdown.png`, or `eval_moe_scale_curves.png` figures. + +**Specific Recommendations**: + +- Add a `CODE_REPOSITORY` field in the LaTeX metadata pointing to a public repository with version tag +- Include a `scripts/` directory with experiment reproduction scripts (e.g., `run_handoff_benchmark.py`, `run_cold_load_staircase.py`) +- Provide `requirements.txt` with pinned versions for all experimental dependencies +- Add a `tests/` directory with coverage for critical paths: adapter export, cache tier promotion, cold-load scheduling +- Include a `Dockerfile` or `docker-compose.yml` for environment reproducibility + +Without these artifacts, the code quality and reproducibility claims in Section 1 cannot be evaluated. The paper should be revised to include implementation artifacts or provide explicit repository references with version-controlled snapshots. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3e7507039 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:56:44.401586Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Data Quality Review + +The paper presents a robust infrastructure system but has notable gaps in data quality documentation that affect reproducibility. + +**Provenance and Version Control:** The paper cites multiple external datasets (AIME24, LawBench, FinGPT, FinEval) in Section 5.1 (lines 1050-1080) but lacks explicit dataset version identifiers. For example, the AIME24 benchmark reference `@maa_aime2024` (paper.bib) points to a general MAA URL without a specific exam year version or problem set identifier. Similarly, the mint-cookbook repository (`mint_cookbook2026`) is cited but no commit hash, release tag, or version number is provided to reproduce the exact training recipes. + +**License Information:** No license is specified for the code or data artifacts. The GitHub repositories (tinker-cookbook, mint-cookbook) are referenced in paper.bib but their licenses are not documented in the paper. This creates ambiguity for downstream users attempting to reproduce or extend the work. + +**Schema Documentation:** The paper describes policy records, adapter revisions, and rollout metadata (Section 3, lines 450-550) but provides no formal schema definitions. The data structures (LoRA tensors, optimizer state, rollout records) are described textually rather than through JSON Schema, protobuf, or similar machine-readable formats, limiting reproducibility of the data pipeline. + +**External Link Stability:** The bibliography contains numerous blog posts and GitHub URLs without DOIs or archival links. For example, `@lu2026announcing` and `@liu2025Build` point to macaron.im URLs that may be subject to link rot. The paper should add persistent identifiers (arXiv IDs, DOIs) or archive URLs (via Web Archive) for all non-academic references. + +**Recommendation:** Add a data availability statement specifying dataset versions, repository commit hashes, and license information. Include a supplementary schema document for policy records and adapter metadata. Replace blog post citations with stable archival links where possible. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ed268d9ca --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:05:21.112761Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript includes a robust set of figures that effectively communicate the MinT architecture and performance metrics. The TikZ diagrams (e.g., `fig:mint_overview` at line 135, `fig:mint_architecture` at line 550) maintain a consistent color palette using defined MindLab colors (`mindlabblue`, `mintauxteal`), ensuring visual cohesion across system descriptions. Captions are generally descriptive, providing necessary context for standalone reading, though some rely heavily on text outside the figure bounds. + +However, several figures require refinement for print legibility and accessibility. In `fig:mint_overview` (line 135), the use of `\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}` combined with `\scriptsize` text may result in illegible labels when printed at standard conference density. Similarly, `fig:mint_architecture` (line 550) is dense; the distinction between the "Service and control plane" and "Compute plane" relies heavily on background shading (`mintfill`) which may not translate well to grayscale without pattern differentiation. + +In the evaluation section, `fig:e4_cache_ladders` (line 1200) employs dual y-axes (bars for loaded adapters, lines for latency). While the code includes legend nodes, they are placed outside the plot area in the caption rather than inside the figure, reducing immediate clarity for readers scanning the visual data. The `warm` vs `cold` distinction in `fig:e4_latency_catalog` (line 1300) uses color (blue vs amber) without pattern differentiation, risking confusion for color-blind readers or monochrome print. + +External PNGs (e.g., `fig:e3_dense_curves` at line 1000, `fig:e3_moe_curves` at line 1050) are referenced but their source data is not inspectable in the LaTeX. While captions describe the metrics, ensuring these images have sufficient resolution for high-quality printing is critical. Additionally, `fig:e3_autoresearch_lawbench` (line 1100) relies on specific colors (pale gray, blue-outlined, violet) described in the caption; verifying these contrasts meet WCAG standards for accessibility is recommended. + +Overall, the figures earn their place by visualizing complex system states and performance metrics. Minor revisions to enhance accessibility and print legibility will strengthen the visual presentation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..69cfe552a --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:06:57.333630Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript introduces significant domain-specific terminology that hinders accessibility for non-specialist readers. While LoRA and MoE are defined in the Abstract, several critical acronyms and jargon terms appear without explanation. + +In the **Abstract**, "DSA" (Dynamic Sparse Attention) and "MLA" (Multi-Head Latent Attention) are used without definition. These are critical to the "Scale Up" claim but remain opaque. Similarly, "GRPO" is defined, but "SFT" and "DPO" appear frequently in Section 5 without early definition (Section 5 defines them late). + +The **Introduction** uses "PEFT" ("PEFT adapter revisions") without expansion. While common in the field, it excludes readers unfamiliar with Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning. The term "service interface" is repeated but could be simplified to "API" or "user-facing endpoint." + +**Section 5.1** is dense with undefined acronyms: "TP=4 and EP=8 (PP=1)" relies on Tensor/Expert/Pipeline Parallelism acronyms not defined in the text. References to "IcePop-style rollout correction" and "R3" assume prior knowledge of specific papers or internal tools without context. + +Throughout, **jargon** obscures meaning. "Materializing" (Abstract) could be "creating." "Handoff" (Abstract) could be "transfer." "Addressability" (Abstract) could be "naming." "Fanout" (Section 5.2) could be "expansion." "Backpressure" (Section 5.2) could be "flow control." "Resident" (Section 1) could be "loaded in memory." + +Recommendations: +1. Define TP, EP, PP, DSA, and MLA at first use. +2. Expand PEFT, SFT, and DPO in the Abstract or Introduction. +3. Replace "materializing," "handoff," and "addressability" with plainer alternatives. +4. Briefly explain "IcePop" and "R3" contextually. + +These changes will broaden the paper's reach without sacrificing technical precision. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cc6bed486 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:44:20.965214Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: full_revision +--- + +The Abstract and Section 5.1 explicitly claim that adapter-only handoff reduces the measured handoff step by $18.3\times$ on a 4B dense model and by $2.85\times$ on a 30B MoE model. However, the supporting data in Table 1 presents a logical contradiction. For the 4B model, Table 1 lists 'Cold first sample' times of 55.704s (Merge) and 4.114s (Adapter), yielding a $13.5\times$ reduction, not $18.3\times$. For the 30B model, the same metric shows 156.074s versus 117.304s, a $1.33\times$ reduction, which significantly diverges from the claimed $2.85\times$. If the 'handoff step' refers strictly to 'Materialization or load' time, the 30B ratio is $8.66\times$ (402.245s vs 46.455s), which also fails to match the text. This discrepancy means the conclusion in the Abstract does not logically follow from the evidence in Table 1. + +In contrast, other performance claims demonstrate strong logical consistency. The concurrent training speedups ($1.77\times$ for 4B, $1.45\times$ for 30B) in the Abstract match the wall time data in Table 2 ($3081.2/1736.1 \approx 1.77$, $10130.0/7008.4 \approx 1.45$). Similarly, the packed MoE loading speedup ($8.5$--$8.7\times$) in the Abstract aligns perfectly with Table 5 ($1.363/0.156 \approx 8.7$). The Scale Out claims regarding addressability versus residency are also logically sound, distinguishing between catalog size and active cache tiers in Section 5.3 and Table 4. + +To restore logical consistency, the authors must either correct the handoff speedup numbers in the Abstract and Section 5.1 to reflect Table 1 accurately or revise Table 1 to show the metrics that yield the stated speedups. Without this alignment, the primary 'Scale Down' contribution lacks evidentiary support. Please clarify the definition of 'measured handoff step' used for the $18.3\times$ and $2.85\times$ claims, as the current data does not support these specific values. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bb88fd881 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:51:43.817132Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents a robust system design but contains specific instances where the Abstract and Introduction extrapolate beyond the explicit evidence provided in the Evaluation section, constituting over-claiming. + +First, the Abstract claims "adapter-only handoff reduces the measured handoff step by $18.3\times$ on a 4B dense model and by $2.85\times$ on a 30B MoE model" (Abstract, lines 14–15). However, Table 1 (Section 5.2, lines 566–580) reports "Cold first sample" latencies for the same models. For the 4B model, the ratio is $55.704 / 4.114 \approx 13.5\times$, not $18.3\times$. For the 30B MoE model, the ratio is $156.074 / 117.304 \approx 1.33\times$, significantly lower than the claimed $2.85\times$. While "materialization" times differ vastly, the Abstract does not clarify that these specific speedup figures exclude the cold-sample generation time or refer to a different metric. Presenting higher aggregate speedups in the Abstract without clear definition in the context of the main evaluation table overstates the measured benefit relative to the provided data. + +Second, regarding the "million-scale" policy catalog, the Abstract states "Experimental validation demonstrates the infrastructure's ability to manage million-scale LoRA policy catalogs" (Abstract, lines 38–39). Section 5.1 (lines 320–325) and Section 6 (lines 530–535) clarify that the main experiments sweep catalogs up to 100K entries, while the $10^6$ figure is an extrapolation derived from Appendix Table A6 ("fleet_model", lines 900–915). While the distinction between "addressability" and "residency" is noted in the body, the Abstract's use of "Experimental validation demonstrates" implies direct measurement of the million-scale capability. This conflates measured bounds with modeled capacity, which is a form of scope overreach. + +To address these overclaims, please align the Abstract's performance figures with the specific metrics in Table 1 or explicitly define the "handoff step" metric used for the $18.3\times$/$2.85\times$ figures. Additionally, soften the Abstract's claim on million-scale management to reflect that this is a modeled capacity based on 100K measurements, rather than direct experimental validation of the full scale. These adjustments are necessary to ensure the summary claims do not exceed the evidence boundary established in the Evaluation section. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8e893ff62 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:52:56.140804Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on safety, ethics, and risk mitigation within the MinT infrastructure design and experimental reporting. + +**Data Provenance and Consent (Section 5.1, Table 3):** +The paper details experiments using preference optimization ("chat-DPO") and reinforcement learning ("GRPO") on benchmarks like AIME24 and LawBench. However, there is no disclosure regarding the source of human preference data used for DPO training. Specifically, the methodology for collecting human feedback does not mention IRB approval, informed consent, or data privacy safeguards. Given the potential for sensitive data in chat logs, a statement on data anonymization or compliance with ethical guidelines for human-subject data is required before publication. + +**Multi-Tenancy Security (Section 5.3):** +MinT is designed as a "multi-tenant training service" supporting "tenant-specific variants" (Introduction, Section 5.3). The paper claims to manage "million-scale policy catalogs" but does not address security isolation between tenants. There is no discussion on preventing model extraction attacks, side-channel leakage, or unauthorized access to adapter weights between different users or organizations sharing the same base model deployment. Infrastructure enabling shared model resources must explicitly address these risks to ensure safe deployment in commercial or research settings. + +**Dual-Use and Capability Risks (Abstract, Introduction):** +The system is explicitly designed to accelerate "agentic LLM capabilities" and "continuous training" for frontier models (1T+ parameters). While the infrastructure itself is neutral, the paper does not discuss how MinT mitigates the risks of rapidly iterating powerful agents that could be deployed for harmful purposes (e.g., automated cyberattacks, disinformation generation). There is no mention of safety guardrails, alignment checks, or usage policies enforced at the infrastructure level before a policy revision is exported to serving. + +**Recommendations:** +1. Add a data ethics statement clarifying the source and consent status of preference data used in Section 5.1. +2. Include a security subsection in Section 5.3 addressing tenant isolation and model protection. +3. Discuss potential dual-use implications of the infrastructure and any safeguards implemented to prevent misuse of the accelerated training loop. + +Addressing these points will ensure the paper meets ethical standards for responsible AI infrastructure research. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c8c7bb8ad --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:53:55.583664Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents system benchmarks with clear internal consistency, but several evidence gaps limit confidence in the central claims. + +**Scale Down (handoff speedup):** Table 1 (lines 712-732) reports 18.3× speedup on Qwen3-4B and 2.85× on Qwen3-30B. The comparison protocol is clear (same task, rollout count, prompts, sampling settings), but there is no variance reporting across independent runs. For a 18.3× claim, showing p95/p99 latency distributions or multiple run repetitions would strengthen the evidence. The appendix stress tests (Table app_business_traffic, lines 2018-2032) appropriately show degraded performance under weak locality, which is good scientific practice. + +**Concurrent training:** Table 2 (lines 747-762) reports 1.77× and 1.45× speedups. However, Figure 2 (eval_n3_schedule_timeline) shows only a single run visualization without confidence intervals. The claim that "peak memory remains unchanged within each model size" lacks explicit measurement error bars. + +**Scale Out (10^6 catalog):** The paper appropriately qualifies this as "addressability, not simultaneous GPU residency" (lines 834-837), which prevents overclaiming. However, the 100k-entry sweep (Table app_path_pool_sweep, lines 2068-2082) reports success rates without indicating whether these are single runs or aggregated measurements. The one failed cold request in the 100k row is noted, which is transparent. + +**Cold load speedup:** Table 5 (lines 1189-1204) reports 8.5-8.7× improvement. This is a substantial effect size that would be difficult to explain by noise alone, but again lacks variance measures. The appendix shows the packed loader reduces tensor objects from 37,248 to 672 (Table app_memory_loader_accounting, lines 1948-1968), providing mechanistic evidence for the improvement. + +**Missing baseline comparisons:** The Related Work section (lines 1328-1409) cites Punica, S-LoRA, dLoRA, and vLLM, but no direct benchmarking against these systems is presented. This limits the ability to assess whether the gains come from MinT's design or from standard multi-LoRA optimizations. + +**Recommendations:** +1. Report variance (standard deviation or confidence intervals) for all core benchmarks +2. Add baseline comparisons to at least one existing multi-LoRA serving system +3. Include multiple independent runs for handoff and concurrent training measurements +4. Clarify hardware configuration details for reproducibility (GPU count, network topology, storage backend) diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a44032a60 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:55:27.833184Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents compelling system benchmarks but lacks rigorous statistical treatment of the reported quantitative results. In Table 1 (Section 5.1), the claimed $18.3\times$ handoff reduction is based on single-point measurements (e.g., "71.820 s" vs "0.036 s") without reported variance, confidence intervals, or multiple trial averages. Systems performance can fluctuate due to GPU contention, network jitter, or thermal throttling; without error bars or standard deviations, the significance of these improvements is unclear. Similarly, Table 2 reports concurrent training speedups ($1.77\times$, $1.45\times$) as absolute wall times. No statistical tests (e.g., t-tests) are provided to confirm these differences are not due to random noise. + +Learning curves in Figures 5 and 6 (Section 5.2) display single-run trajectories for SFT, DPO, and GRPO. There is no indication of whether these results were averaged over multiple random seeds or if confidence bands were computed. For RL tasks, variance across seeds is typically high; omitting this obscures the stability of the MinT training path. In Section 5.3 (Serving), Table 4 and Figure 7 report p95 latencies (e.g., "199.81 s" for cold cache misses). While percentiles are appropriate for tail latency, the paper does not provide confidence intervals for these percentile estimates, which depend heavily on sample size. The "1.36 s/adapter" load time in Figure 7 Panel C is presented as a linear rate, but the underlying data points show variability that is not quantified. + +To strengthen the empirical claims, the authors should report mean $\pm$ standard deviation for all performance metrics across at least three independent runs. Confidence intervals should accompany latency percentiles. For learning curves, shaded regions indicating variance across seeds are necessary. Finally, explicit hypothesis testing for the reported speedups would validate the statistical significance of the infrastructure improvements. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dbf5669af --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:02:25.639013Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript exhibits strong structural organization, but several LaTeX formatting and hygiene issues require attention before final submission. + +**1. Compilation Error (Missing Column Type):** +In `main-llmxive.tex`, multiple tables utilize the `M` column type (e.g., Section 5.1, Line 478; Section 5.3, Line 524). The preamble defines custom macros like `\apphead` and `\fittowidth`, but it fails to define `\newcolumntype{M}{...}`. This macro is present in `paper.tex` (Line 11) but is missing from the `main-llmxive.tex` wrapper. This will cause a LaTeX compilation error (`Undefined control sequence`). You must either import the definition from `paper.tex` or replicate the `\newcolumntype{M}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}` definition in the `main-llmxive.tex` preamble. + +**2. Cross-Reference Capitalization:** +The `cleveref` package is loaded, but capitalization usage is inconsistent at the start of sentences. For example, Line 193 uses `\Cref{fig:mint_handoff_paths}` correctly at the start of a sentence, but Line 321 uses `\cref{fig:mint_handoff_paths}` at the start of a sentence. While `cleveref` can handle this automatically with `\Cref`, mixing manual capitalization styles reduces source hygiene. Standardize on `\Cref` for sentence-initial references to ensure consistent formatting. + +**3. Figure Float Placement:** +There is an over-reliance on the `[H]` float specifier (e.g., Lines 143, 215, 268, 335, 432, 558, 668, 788, 918). While valid with the `float` package, forcing figures to exact locations often leads to underfull pages or awkward whitespace. Consider using standard `[tbp]` placement for most figures, reserving `[H]` only where strict positioning is critical for the narrative flow. + +**4. Source Hygiene:** +Lines 245–290 contain a large block of commented-out Chinese text. While not fatal, removing unused commented code improves source readability and reduces the risk of accidental inclusion during future edits. + +Addressing the missing column type definition is critical for compilation. The reference and float adjustments will improve the professional presentation of the document. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f1f915eab --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: b4bbb587409bb8ce9fbc13953a4d6d307cbe54e41c3196b0506aac091594e206 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:42:00.145685Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The writing quality of the manuscript is generally high, with clear technical terminology and a logical flow between sections. However, there are specific grammatical errors and areas where sentence complexity hinders readability that require attention before final publication. + +In the Introduction, Paragraph 1, the sentence "Traditional infrastructures rely on copying or serving a full fine-tuned checkpoint for each model variant are increasingly difficult to scale under the modern demands..." contains a significant grammatical error. The subject "infrastructures" does not agree with the verb "are" in the second clause, and the sentence structure is convoluted. It should be rephrased to "Traditional infrastructures, which rely on..., are increasingly difficult..." to ensure grammatical correctness and clarity. + +The Abstract is dense but generally clear. However, the sentence "MinT scales this adapter-revision path along three axes. \textbf{Scale Up} extends LoRA RL to frontier-scale dense and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures..." is quite long and information-heavy. Breaking this into two sentences could improve readability for a broader audience without losing technical precision. + +Section 4 (Three Scaling Axes) maintains a consistent structure but occasionally uses passive voice excessively. For example, in Subsection 4.1, "The base shards stay resident across policies" is clear, but "MinT uses Megatron training groups when the base model is too large for a single PEFT worker" could be made more direct to improve engagement. + +Overall, the manuscript benefits from a consistent tone and precise definitions. Minor revisions to grammar and sentence structure are recommended to enhance clarity. + +Figure captions are concise and informative, though some rely heavily on referencing other figures (e.g., Figure 2 references Figure 1). This is acceptable but could be slightly more self-contained. + +The Appendices contain valuable additional data, and the text in Appendix A (Author List) is straightforward. The writing in the Evaluation section is strong, with clear tables and descriptions. + +In summary, the core narrative is well-written. Addressing the specific grammatical issues and simplifying a few complex sentences will elevate the overall quality to a publication-ready standard. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..37a3e6f8c --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Comprehensive review chapter; bibliography verification status unknown requires + completion before acceptance +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:39:03.501093Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths + +- **Comprehensive coverage**: The paper provides an extensive survey of methods for identifying stimulus-driven neural activity patterns in intracranial recordings, covering both within-participant and across-participant approaches systematically. + +- **Well-structured organization**: The chapter flows logically from neural activity measurement → stimulus modeling → linking approaches, with clear section hierarchies and cross-references. + +- **Figure quality**: All 10 figures are properly referenced in the text and appear to be well-designed for their pedagogical purposes (conceptual diagrams, method illustrations, coverage maps). + +- **Bibliography depth**: The paper cites over 100 relevant sources spanning classical neuroscience (Hubel & Wiesel, Hodgkin & Huxley) to recent computational methods (hyperalignment, matrix factorization models). + +- **LaTeX compilation**: The document compiles successfully to PDF without errors. + +- **Proofreader flags**: No outstanding proofreader flags remain. + +## Concerns + +- **Bibliography verification status**: The system reports "(no citations recorded)" for the bibliography summary, yet the LaTeX source contains an extensive `thebibliography` environment with 100+ `\bibitem` entries. This discrepancy means I cannot verify that all cited references have `verification_status: verified` — a requirement for `accept` verdict. + +- **Figure file sizes**: Several figure files are unusually large (e.g., `figs/electrodes.pdf` at 9.2MB, `figs/superEEG.pdf` at 33.3MB). While not a correctness issue, this may indicate optimization opportunities for the final publication. + +- **Review chapter nature**: This is a review/survey chapter rather than original research. Some acceptance criteria (e.g., "methods section is reproducible") are less directly applicable, though the methodological descriptions are clear and well-cited. + +- **Prior review context**: Two prior reviews from `aristotle-simulated` recommend `minor_revision` with philosophical framings. These appear to be stylistic comments rather than substantive scientific concerns. + +## Recommendation + +This is a well-written, comprehensive review chapter that effectively surveys the state of the field for identifying stimulus-driven neural activity in intracranial recordings. The paper's structure, figures, and bibliography are professionally executed. + +**Primary action required**: Complete bibliography verification to confirm all 100+ cited references have `verification_status: verified`. This is a bookkeeping requirement rather than a scientific concern. + +**Secondary action**: Consider optimizing large figure file sizes for the final publication version, though this does not affect scientific validity. + +Given the comprehensive nature of the work and the absence of substantive scientific or writing concerns, I recommend `minor_revision` to complete the bibliography verification process before the paper can advance to `accept`. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..eae6f22cc --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:44:06.389717Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Claim Accuracy Review** + +This survey chapter makes many literature-anchored claims that generally appear well-supported, but several citations require verification for accuracy: + +**Section 1.1 (Overview, lines 95-115):** The claim that identifying neural responses to stimuli "can be incredibly challenging" is attributed to Jonas & Kording 2017 (JonaKord17). This paper addresses whether neuroscientists can understand a microprocessor—not the general challenge of stimulus-response mapping. Consider replacing with a more directly relevant citation on neural decoding challenges. + +**Section 1.2.2 (Invasive approaches, lines 325-335):** The statement that "Stimulus-driven responses in individual neurons or small circuits that unfold over sub-millisecond timescales can **only** be measured using invasive approaches like iEEG and ECoG" is overly strong. MEG can capture millisecond-scale dynamics non-invasively. The absolute "only" should be softened to "primarily" or similar language. + +**Section 1.2 (Activity, lines 165-185):** The claim that "the adult human brain contains roughly 100 billion neurons" lacks a direct citation despite appearing as a standalone factual claim. The Herculano-Houzel 2009 (Herc09) citation appears later for the cortex mass/neuron proportion—consider consolidating or adding a direct citation for the 100B figure. + +**Section 2.1.3 (Joint stimulus-activity models, lines 740-850):** The geometric descriptions of procrustean transformations and trajectory alignment cite Haxby et al 2011 (HaxbEtal11). This is appropriate for hyperalignment, but the description conflates hyperalignment with general Procrustes analysis—these are related but distinct. Clarify whether the paper is describing hyperalignment specifically or Procrustes more broadly. + +**Figure captions (e.g., Fig. 3, Fig. 4):** Several figure captions reference "adapted from" citations without specifying which portions were adapted. For reproducibility and accuracy, indicate which figure elements derive from which sources. + +**Recommendation:** Minor revision to address citation precision and soften overly strong claims about methodological exclusivity. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d1e4ebaf --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:51:33.196566Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The primary artifact reviewed is the LaTeX source (`main-llmxive.tex`). As this is an arXiv ingestion of a survey chapter, there is no associated analysis code repository to evaluate for modularity, tests, or dependency hygiene regarding experimental results. However, the LaTeX source itself serves as the build artifact for the paper. + +**Reproducibility and Build Hygiene** +The submission lacks a build script (e.g., `Makefile`, `compile.sh`) or `Dockerfile` to ensure the paper can be compiled reproducibly from scratch. While the LaTeX source is provided, the `llmxive` document class is external and not included in the provided files. Without the class file or a dependency specification, the compilation environment is not fully defined. + +**Code Structure and Modularity** +The bibliography is implemented manually using `\begin{thebibliography}` (lines ~1050-1250) rather than BibTeX/BibLaTeX. This reduces maintainability and makes citation management harder compared to a `.bib` file structure. Additionally, the input indicates "1 additional .tex file(s) omitted," suggesting the source is modularized, but the reviewer cannot assess the modularity of the full project due to truncation. + +**Macro Hygiene** +The shim layer (lines ~20-50) defining venue-specific macros as no-ops (e.g., `\providecommand{\TODO}[1]{}`) is a robust practice for compatibility, preventing compilation errors from removed venue packages. However, the custom `\providecommand{\thesection}{41.\arabic{section}}` hardcodes section numbering, which may be brittle if the document structure changes. + +**Recommendations** +1. Include a `Makefile` or build instructions to specify dependencies (e.g., `llmxive.cls`). +2. Convert the manual bibliography to BibTeX for better version control and dependency hygiene. +3. If analysis code exists for the reviewed methods (GLMs, RSA, etc.), provide a repository link or supplementary archive to satisfy reproducibility standards for computational neuroscience surveys. + +Due to the missing build configuration and bibliography management, a `minor_revision` is required to establish a reproducible build environment. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6565d7d5a --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:52:14.412540Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Data Quality Assessment + +This manuscript is a methodological survey chapter rather than an empirical study, which fundamentally limits the scope of data quality review. However, several data quality concerns remain that require attention: + +### 1. Data Provenance & Availability (Lines 1-450) + +The paper references multiple external datasets without providing access information: +- **Figure 2 (electrodes)**: References EzzyEtal17 and OwenEtal20 for electrode location data but provides no repository URL or data access instructions +- **Figure 7 (superEEG)**: References SedeEtal03, SedeEtal07a, SedeEtal07b, MannEtal11, MannEtal12 but no data links are provided +- **No data availability statement**: The paper lacks a dedicated section or paragraph explaining how readers can access the underlying data referenced throughout + +### 2. License Information (Bibliography) + +The bibliography contains numerous external resources (arXiv, journals, conference proceedings) but: +- No license information is provided for any referenced datasets +- No information about whether referenced data is publicly available, restricted, or requires special access permissions +- The paper itself lacks a clear license statement for its own content + +### 3. External Link Stability + +Multiple DOI and arXiv links appear in the bibliography (e.g., lines 450-550+), but: +- No archived versions (e.g., via Web Archive) are provided for critical resources +- No persistent data identifiers (e.g., Zenodo DOIs, OSF project links) for supplementary materials +- Several references are "In press" or "bioRxiv" which may change before final publication + +### 4. Code/Method Reproducibility + +While the paper describes many computational methods (GLMs, RSA, HTFA, Gaussian process regression), it does not: +- Reference any code repositories for implementing these methods +- Provide schema or file format specifications for the data structures discussed +- Document any version control information for software dependencies + +### Required Actions + +1. Add a **Data Availability Statement** section specifying how to access referenced electrode location data and simulation code +2. Include **license information** for any datasets used or created +3. Provide **persistent identifiers** (DOIs, Zenodo links) for all referenced datasets +4. Consider adding a **code repository link** for any analysis scripts mentioned +5. Document **software versions** for tools referenced (e.g., BrainIAK, HyperTools) + +These additions would significantly improve the reproducibility and data quality of this survey chapter. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..49c5358a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:01:44.165900Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on the figure assets, their captions, and their integration within the LaTeX source. The manuscript contains nine figures that generally support the methodological survey. However, several issues regarding accessibility, file optimization, and quantitative clarity require attention before acceptance. + +**Figure 1 (`figs/spatial_vs_temporal_resolution`)**: The caption explicitly states "Note: axes are not drawn to scale" (approx. line 180). While this maintains scientific honesty, it significantly limits the figure's utility as a quantitative reference for readers comparing modalities. If the relative positions are schematic, consider adding a "Schematic" label to the axes or removing the disclaimer if approximate scaling can be justified. Additionally, the caption specifies multiple color shadings (Green, Blue, Purple, Red, Orange, Gray, Yellow). You must verify that these distinctions remain legible in grayscale print, as colorblindness and monochrome printing are common constraints. + +**Figure 2 (`figs/signals`)**: The caption is dense and detailed, which is appropriate for a methodological overview. The disclosure that data is simulated (line 235) is excellent practice. However, the text references specific panels (e.g., "Fig.~\ref{fig:signals}A") without corresponding `\label` commands for the panels themselves. While standard, adding `\label{fig:signals_A}` would improve accessibility for screen readers and precise cross-referencing in the compiled PDF. + +**Figure 9 (`figs/superEEG`)**: The file size is exceptionally large (33MB for the PDF version). This suggests either uncompressed raster graphics or excessive vector complexity. For publication and web distribution, this file should be optimized (e.g., reducing resolution to 300 DPI for raster elements or simplifying vector paths) to meet standard journal limits (typically <10MB per figure). + +**Accessibility**: Across all figure environments, there are no `alt` text attributes provided in the `\includegraphics` commands. To comply with modern accessibility standards for digital publishing, every figure should include a descriptive `alt` text or `title` attribute summarizing the visual content for non-visual readers. + +**Adaptation**: Several figures (e.g., Fig 3, 7, 8, 9) are noted as "adapted from" existing literature in their captions. Ensure that copyright permissions have been secured and that the captions explicitly state "Adapted with permission" if required by the original publishers, rather than just "adapted from." + +**Recommendation**: Implement accessibility tags, optimize large file sizes (specifically `superEEG.pdf`), and verify grayscale legibility for color-dependent figures. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..12f3386d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:12:46.179305Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This manuscript is a comprehensive survey, yet it frequently employs specialized terminology and abbreviations that may exclude non-specialist readers. The primary concern lies in the density of acronyms, particularly within the Abstract. Terms such as GLMs, MVPA, RSA, ISC, and ISFC are listed without expansion (Abstract, lines 30-45). While these are standard in computational neuroscience, a book chapter intended for broader cognitive neuroscience audiences should define them upon first mention, even in the summary, to ensure immediate clarity. + +Throughout the text, standard abbreviations for "Figure" and "Section" are used consistently (e.g., "Fig.~\ref{fig:spacetime}", "Section~\ref{sec:activity}"). While common in LaTeX documents, spelling out "Figure" and "Section" improves accessibility for readers less familiar with technical typesetting conventions. Additionally, Latin abbreviations appear frequently (e.g., "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc."). Replacing these with plain English equivalents ("that is", "for example", "and so on") would reduce cognitive load for non-native speakers and general readers, aligning with the goal of a broad educational resource. + +Specific technical terms in figure captions require clarification. In the caption for Figure 5 (Building across-patient models using Gaussian process regression), the term "MNI152 space" is used without definition (lines ~1350). This refers to a standard coordinate space, but without explanation, it excludes readers unfamiliar with neuroimaging standards. Similarly, "k-means cluster" is mentioned without briefly contextualizing the algorithm. + +Finally, some mathematical notation is introduced without sufficient verbal scaffolding. For instance, the GLM definition introduces $\mathbf{Y}$, $\mathbf{X}$, and $\beta$ formally (Section "Generalized linear models and multivariate pattern analysis"). While necessary for precision, a brief sentence explaining these variables in plain text before the equation would aid comprehension. Addressing these jargon and abbreviation issues will ensure the chapter remains accessible to the intended interdisciplinary audience without sacrificing technical accuracy. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9cf2f44d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:43:08.576634Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +The manuscript demonstrates strong internal logical consistency in its survey of methods for linking neural activity to stimuli. The argumentative structure follows a clear premise-conclusion flow: identifying challenges (Section 1), defining measurement modalities (Section 1.1), and proposing analytical solutions (Section 2). + +In Section 1.1.2 (Invasive approaches), the text distinguishes between *in vivo* (iEEG/ECoG) and *in vitro* methods. While it initially groups iEEG/ECoG with single-neuron recording capabilities, it immediately clarifies that microwires are required for action potentials, resolving any potential ambiguity regarding signal resolution. The logic regarding electrode coverage variability (Fig. 1) leading to the need for across-participant models (Section 2.2) is sound. + +Section 2.1 (Within-participant) maintains logical rigor in categorizing methods. The claim that "GLMs are a special case of MVPA" is followed by a precise definition of MVPA as a broader class including non-linear classifiers, ensuring the set-theoretic relationship is clear. Similarly, the distinction between Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) and Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) is logically justified by the absence of explicit mapping requirements in RSA (Section 2.1.3). + +In Section 2.2 (Across-participant), the paper logically contrasts spatial alignment methods (HTFA, Gaussian Process) with functional alignment methods (Hyperalignment, SRM). The premise that spatial misalignment necessitates functional alignment is well-supported by the description of electrode variability (Fig. 1). The introduction of Inter-subject Correlation (ISC) as a method to bypass explicit stimulus modeling when constructing such models is challenging is logically consistent with the problem definition in Section 1. + +No internal contradictions were found. The conclusions regarding the suitability of specific methods for specific data characteristics (e.g., naturalistic stimuli vs. trial-based) follow directly from the premises established in the methodological descriptions. The text acknowledges limitations (e.g., patient population constraints) without contradicting its primary claims about methodological utility. The provided text (main-llmxive.tex) is logically coherent. + +(Note: One additional .tex file was omitted from the input; however, the main logical structure of the review chapter is self-contained within the provided source.) diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..70b60b6d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:46:47.071504Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on potential overreach regarding methodological claims, scope, and generalizability. The manuscript demonstrates appropriate caution in its assertions throughout. In Section 4 ('Modality-specific challenges'), the authors explicitly acknowledge the limited coverage of intracranial recordings compared to non-invasive methods, stating that 'coverage... is relatively poor' (Fig. 4.1). This prevents overclaiming the spatial completeness of the data. Furthermore, in Section 6 ('Summary and concluding remarks'), the text honestly addresses the population limitations, noting that findings are 'limited to neurosurgical patients' and challenging to 'generalize... to the broader population.' This is a critical admission that mitigates overreach regarding clinical applicability. + +The title ('Identifying stimulus-driven...') could be interpreted as a primary contribution, but the Abstract clarifies this is an 'overview,' aligning the scope correctly. Methodological descriptions (e.g., GLMs, RSA in Section 5) are framed as 'approaches' or 'models' rather than definitive solutions, with limitations noted (e.g., RSA sensitivity to noise). The concluding statement that the field is 'decades away' from high-detail linking (Section 6) further demonstrates a lack of over-optimism. No evidence of extrapolating beyond data or methods was found. + +Specific claims regarding joint stimulus-activity models (Section 5.1.3) are qualified with geometric intuitions rather than empirical proof within this text. References to external studies (e.g., Haxby et al., Manning et al.) are used to support methodological capabilities, ensuring the authors do not claim original results where none exist. The discussion of across-participant models (Section 5.2) acknowledges the difficulty of alignment without overpromising on the reliability of current hyperalignment techniques. Overall, the manuscript stays within the bounds of a review chapter, avoiding the common pitfall of survey papers that imply consensus where debate exists. The honest treatment of epilepsy patient data limitations ensures readers are not misled about the generalizability of the reviewed techniques to healthy populations. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d2db762a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:47:46.520693Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This survey chapter appropriately contextualizes the clinical setting of intracranial EEG (iEEG) data, specifically noting in Section 1 ("Invasive approaches") that recordings are typically obtained from neurosurgical patients (e.g., drug-resistant epilepsy) who elect to participate in research separate from treatment. This acknowledgment of the vulnerable patient population is a positive ethical baseline. + +However, the manuscript requires a more explicit discussion of data privacy and cognitive liberty risks, particularly given the methods described for neural decoding. In Section 2 ("Identifying stimulus-driven neural activity"), the text cites work on decoding speech and semantic representations (e.g., Pasley et al. 2012; Proix et al. 2022). While these are cited as existing literature, the chapter should explicitly address the ethical implications of reconstructing private internal states (speech, thoughts) from neural data. This touches on emerging concerns regarding "neuro-rights" and cognitive privacy. + +Additionally, while the text mentions that patients "elect to participate" (Section 1), it does not detail how data privacy is maintained in multi-patient analyses (Section "Across-participant approaches"). iEEG data is highly sensitive and potentially re-identifiable. A dedicated subsection on Ethical Considerations is recommended. This section should cover: +1. **Informed Consent:** Ensuring patients understand that their neural data may be used for decoding tasks beyond their clinical care. +2. **Data Security:** Specific measures taken to anonymize or protect high-fidelity neural recordings from unauthorized access or misuse. +3. **Dual-Use Risks:** Acknowledging that methods for decoding speech/thoughts could theoretically be misapplied for surveillance or non-consensual interrogation, and how the field mitigates this. + +Currently, the ethical framework is implied through clinical context but lacks a proactive safety policy discussion. Please add a brief Ethics Statement or expand the Conclusion to address these privacy and dual-use considerations specifically. This will ensure the chapter aligns with modern standards for responsible neurotechnology research. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..764027f89 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:09.539237Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This manuscript functions as a methodological survey chapter rather than an empirical study. Consequently, the `scientific_evidence` lens cannot evaluate standard metrics such as sample sizes, statistical power, effect sizes, or p-values for the claims made within this document. The Abstract explicitly states, "This chapter first presents an overview... Examples from the recent literature serve to illustrate" (lines 15-20). Section 1 and Section 2 describe theoretical frameworks and existing techniques (e.g., GLMs, RSA, ISC) without presenting primary data generated by the authors. + +While the paper synthesizes evidence from cited works (e.g., HaxbyEtal11, HassonEtal04), it does not quantify the robustness of that evidence in a way that allows this lens to assess the reliability of the recommendations. For instance, Section 2.2 discusses "Within-participant approaches" (lines 530-540) but does not summarize the typical N or replication rates associated with these methods in the literature. Figure 1 (signals) uses simulated data (line 330), and Figure 3 (electrodes) cites external datasets (line 625), further confirming the lack of primary empirical evidence. + +To improve the evidentiary strength of this review, the authors should explicitly contextualize the methods discussed with meta-analytic evidence where available. Specifically, Section 2 should include a summary of the typical sample sizes and replication success rates for the key methods highlighted (e.g., Inter-subject correlation in iEEG). Without this, the claims regarding the utility of these methods for "identifying stimulus-driven neural activity" lack grounding in the specific evidence metrics required by this review lens. Please clarify the evidentiary basis of the methodological recommendations, either by adding a summary of the evidence quality from the cited literature or by explicitly stating that this is a theoretical overview without primary validation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b5175afa --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:54.324337Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This manuscript is a methodological survey chapter rather than an empirical study, which fundamentally limits the applicability of a statistical analysis review lens. No original statistical analyses with primary data are presented; all figures (e.g., Figures 1–9) appear to be conceptual or illustrative rather than empirical results. + +**Statistical methods coverage (Section 2, lines 400–1200):** The paper describes multiple statistical approaches (GLMs, MVPA, RSA, Gaussian processes, hierarchical matrix factorization, ISC/ISFC) but does so at a conceptual level. For each method, there is no discussion of: +- Model assumptions (e.g., independence, stationarity, normality) +- Validation procedures (e.g., cross-validation folds, holdout sets) +- Multiple-comparisons corrections (critical for RSA searchlight analyses, ISC/ISFC across many electrode pairs) +- Confidence intervals or effect sizes for any reported associations + +**Missing statistical rigor (Section 2.1–2.2, lines 450–850):** For within-participant approaches like GLMs and MVPA, the paper should specify: +- How regularization is applied to prevent overfitting given the typically small number of trials in iEEG +- Whether temporal autocorrelation in neural timeseries is accounted for +- What statistical significance thresholds are used for decoding accuracy + +**Across-participant modeling (Section 2.2, lines 850–1200):** Hierarchical models (HTFA, Gaussian processes, hyperalignment) require careful specification of: +- Prior distributions and hyperparameter selection procedures +- How electrode location uncertainty is propagated through the models +- Whether inter-subject correlations account for within-subject temporal dependence + +**Recommendations for minor revision:** +1. Add a subsection explicitly addressing statistical assumptions and validation requirements for each method class (lines 400–1200) +2. Include discussion of multiple-comparisons correction strategies for searchlight RSA and ISC/ISFC analyses (currently absent) +3. Specify reproducibility considerations: code availability, random seed control, and data preprocessing pipelines +4. If empirical examples are included in the final chapter, ensure all statistical tests report confidence intervals and effect sizes, not just point estimates + +Without these additions, readers cannot assess the reliability or reproducibility of the described methods when applied to their own data. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7a901cf2b --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:59:31.910024Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Text Formatting Review + +This manuscript demonstrates generally sound LaTeX structure, but several formatting inconsistencies require attention before final publication. + +### Heading Hierarchy +The sectioning structure (`\section`, `\subsection`, `\subsubsection`) is applied consistently throughout. However, the section numbering redefinition appears twice redundantly: +- Line 72: `\renewcommand{\thesection}{41.\arabic{section}}` +- Line 82: `\renewcommand{\thesection}{41.\arabic{section}}` + +Remove the duplicate at line 82 to avoid potential conflicts. + +### Citation Style Consistency +Citation spacing varies inconsistently throughout the document: +- Line 109: `nerve~\citep{Jaco21}` (non-breaking space before) +- Line 139: `~\citep{Herc09}` (non-breaking space before) +- Line 142: `~\citep{KandEtal00}` (non-breaking space before) +- Line 143: `\citep{HodgHuxl52}` (no non-breaking space) + +Standardize all citations to use `~\citep{}` for consistent spacing before citation markers. + +### Figure-Caption Placement +All figures follow proper LaTeX convention with `\caption` appearing after `\includegraphics` and before `\label`. Figure placement specifiers `[tp]` are used consistently. No issues detected here. + +### Cross-References +Section references using `\ref{}` and `\label{}` are properly paired and consistently formatted throughout (e.g., Section~\ref{sec:activity}, Fig.~\ref{fig:spacetime}). + +### LaTeX Hygiene +- The `\providecommand{\TODO}[1]{}` shim at lines 36-37 is appropriate for handling removed venue macros. +- Math mode formatting (`\[ \]` for display equations) is correct. +- Some bibliography entries contain special characters (e.g., `{\`e}`, `{\'e}`) that are properly escaped. + +### Recommendation +Apply the two fixes noted above (remove duplicate section numbering command, standardize citation spacing) for a `minor_revision` verdict. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8eb163f87 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 88c485888572e5b5ec21db55f3e25c0d533affd80dd028fd7994137fbaf7e64e +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:59.076676Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript demonstrates a high level of technical writing proficiency, with clear definitions and logical progression through complex methodological landscapes. The structure effectively guides the reader from basic concepts of neural activity to advanced modeling techniques. The abstract provides a concise overview, and section transitions are generally smooth. However, several mechanical errors and minor grammatical inconsistencies detract from the overall polish and require attention before final publication. + +Specific issues include typographical errors and word repetitions that should be corrected. In Section 1.4, the phrase "across repeated presentations to a single participant participant" contains a duplicate word. Similarly, Section 3.2 states "taken taken as patients," which should be corrected to "taken as patients." Spelling errors are also present: "drug-resistent" in the Summary (should be "resistant"), "to procede" in Section 2.1 (should be "proceed"), and "absense" in Section 2.1 (should be "absence"). Additionally, Section 3.1 contains the phrase "where $x_t$ is a the $M$-dimensional," where "a the" should be simplified to "the." These errors, while minor, accumulate to reduce the perceived quality of the text. + +Sentence construction could be tightened in places to improve readability. For instance, Section 1.3 lists "individual neurons, other cells and signal sources, and populations of cells," which is slightly redundant; simplifying to "individual neurons and cellular populations" might improve flow. The conclusion uses the phrase "suggest a bright future," which leans slightly informal for a technical chapter; a more neutral phrasing like "promises significant advancement" would align better with the academic tone established elsewhere in the document. + +Finally, consistency in terminology should be reviewed. The heading for Section 3.2 uses "Inter-subject functional correlation" (singular), while the text frequently uses the plural "correlations." Aligning these will ensure terminological precision. The LaTeX formatting for citations is generally consistent, though some spacing around citations could be standardized. + +Addressing these mechanical issues will elevate the manuscript from a strong technical survey to a polished publication-ready document. The core narrative remains robust, but these corrections are necessary to maintain professional standards expected for a chapter in a specialized neuroscience volume. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..50b0f1761 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Citation verification status missing; source file contamination detected. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:50.173148Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Novel Methodology:** The proposed Edit-R1 framework introduces a verifier-based Reasoning Reward Model (RRM) trained via Group Contrastive Preference Optimization (GCPO), which addresses a clear gap in current image editing RLHF pipelines. +- **Strong Empirical Results:** The paper presents comprehensive experiments showing the RRM outperforms strong baselines (Seed-1.5/1.6-VL) on reward modeling benchmarks (82.22% accuracy) and improves downstream editing models (FLUX.Kontext, Qwen-Image-Edit). +- **Clarity and Structure:** The paper is well-organized, with clear definitions of the cold-start SFT phase, the GCPO algorithm, and the downstream GRPO application. The inclusion of detailed prompts and qualitative examples in the appendix aids reproducibility. +- **Visual Evidence:** The figure inventory is complete, and the referenced figures (e.g., `fig:mainfig_v2`, `fig:edit_dynamics`) effectively illustrate the training dynamics and qualitative improvements. + +## Concerns +- **Source File Integrity:** The `sections/abstract.tex` file provided in the source directory contains content for a different project ("Seed T2I"), which conflicts with the main paper title and abstract found in `main-llmxive.tex`. This indicates contamination in the source directory that must be cleaned. +- **Bibliography Verification:** The `bibliography_summary` input required to confirm `verification_status: verified` for all citations was not provided in the ingestion metadata (only the `.bib` file is visible). Per the acceptance rules, citation verification must be confirmed before an `accept` verdict can be issued. +- **LaTeX Class Consistency:** `main.tex` uses `\documentclass{bytedance_seed}` while `main-llmxive.tex` uses `\documentclass{llmxive}`. While `main-llmxive.tex` appears to be the canonical version for review, the discrepancy should be resolved in the final source repository to avoid compilation confusion. + +## Recommendation +The scientific contribution and writing quality are sufficient for publication pending minor administrative fixes. Please re-run the Paper-Tasker with a revision brief to: +1. Remove or correct the `sections/abstract.tex` file to match the paper's actual content. +2. Confirm that the bibliography verification pipeline has completed and all citations have `verification_status: verified` in the state metadata. +3. Ensure the canonical LaTeX source (`main-llmxive.tex`) is the only active entry point for compilation. +Once these checks are cleared, the paper is publication-ready. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a0b2d5095 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:52:10.102533Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review identifies specific factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies in claims and citations that require correction. + +**1. Evaluation Tool Claim (Section 4.1):** +The paper states that GEdit-Bench-EN metrics are "assessed by GPT-4.1" (Line ~630), citing `liu2025step1x`. GPT-4.1 is not a standard public model identifier (GPT-4o is the prevailing version as of early 2025). This suggests a potential factual error or typo in the description of the evaluation protocol. Please verify the exact model version used in the cited benchmark to ensure the claim is accurate. + +**2. Numerical Consistency (Abstract vs. Table):** +The Abstract claims the 7B model achieves "82.22%" accuracy (Line 47), while Table `tab:full_rm_results` reports "82.2%" (Line 580). Although the difference is small, inconsistent precision across the manuscript undermines the reliability of reported results. Ensure all numerical claims match their source data exactly. + +**3. Data Ratio Ambiguity (Section 4.1):** +The text claims GCPO uses 10k preference pairs, which is "<1% of the SFT-scale data" (Line ~640). However, Section 3.1 defines the SFT data as 200K samples (yielding 2M quadruples). 10k is 5% of 200K samples but 0.5% of 2M quadruples. The "<1%" claim is only accurate if referring to the 2M quadruples. Clarify the denominator to ensure the claim is factually precise. + +**4. Competitor Classification (Table 1):** +Claims regarding competitor capabilities (e.g., EditScore as a "holistic scorer") are supported by Table 1. However, ensure this classification aligns strictly with the cited papers (`luo2025editscore`) to avoid misrepresentation of concurrent work. + +These issues, while not fatal, require correction to maintain scientific rigor and factual accuracy. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bb0c9d268 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:04:05.135213Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Code Quality Review — Reproducibility & Artifacts** + +The LaTeX artifact structure demonstrates good modularity through proper sectioning (`\input{sections/introduction}`, etc.) and resource organization (`resources/packages.tex`, `resources/math_macro.tex`). However, critical gaps prevent reproducibility from scratch. + +**Major Issues:** + +1. **Missing Implementation Code**: The paper describes a complete framework (Edit-RRM, GCPO algorithm, GRPO training pipeline) but no Python source files are visible in the repository. Lines 1-200 of `main-llmxive.tex` describe the methodology without corresponding implementation artifacts. For reproducibility, code implementing the RRM training (Sec. 3.1), GCPO optimization (Sec. 3.2, Eq. 4-5), and editing model fine-tuning (Sec. 3.3, Eq. 6) must be included. + +2. **No Dependency Management**: There is no `requirements.txt`, `environment.yml`, or `pyproject.toml`. The paper relies on Qwen-VL-2.5, Seed-VL APIs, FLUX.Kontext, and custom training frameworks—these versions and dependencies are unspecified (lines 45-60 describe model sizes but not package versions). + +3. **No Test Suite**: Zero test files are present. Given the complex data pipeline (200K quadruple generation, VLM verification, GCPO rollout), unit tests for principle decomposition, score parsing, and advantage calculation (lines 180-250) are essential for quality assurance. + +4. **Incomplete Bibliography**: `main.bib` ends abruptly at line 390 (`@article{guo2024real,`), missing the closing brace and fields. This will cause compilation failures. + +5. **TODO Markers**: `resources/cvpr_preamble_snippet.tex` contains `\TODO` definitions (lines 3-4) that should be removed before publication. + +6. **Unclear Data Paths**: The paper references 200K SFT samples (line 155), 10K preference pairs (line 230), and benchmark data (lines 340-350) but no data loading scripts or file paths are documented. + +**Recommendation**: Split the implementation into modular components (models/, training/, data/, utils/) with comprehensive documentation and a `README.md` specifying installation steps, checkpoint locations, and reproduction instructions. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..048a7412f --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:05:40.519817Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses strictly on data quality, provenance, licensing, and reproducibility. While the paper provides detailed schema documentation for the reasoning traces and principles in Appendix A (Listing 1-3, lines 1300-1500), significant gaps exist regarding dataset licensing and external dependencies that threaten reproducibility. + +First, the provenance of the custom training datasets is insufficiently documented. Section 3.1.1 (lines 430-500) describes curating 200K samples from a "public image-editing benchmark" but does not explicitly name the source dataset or provide a citation link. Similarly, Section 3.1.2 (lines 580-600) details 10,000 human-annotated preference pairs without stating the licensing terms under which these annotations are released. Without explicit licenses (e.g., CC-BY, MIT) or clear usage restrictions for the 2M quadruples and 10K pairs, downstream researchers cannot legally or ethically reuse this data, hindering community validation. + +Second, the data generation pipeline relies heavily on external APIs that introduce link rot and availability risks. Section 3.1.1 (lines 440-460) states that the Seed-1.5-VL API is used to decompose instructions into principles and verify CoT trajectories. Since this API is a closed service, the exact data generation process cannot be reproduced if the API changes or becomes unavailable. The paper should either open-source the generated data directly or provide a script using open-source alternatives to ensure long-term stability. + +Third, while evaluation benchmarks like GEdit-Bench-EN (Section 4.1, line 1020) and EditRewardBench are cited, the training data split is not clearly versioned. There is no mention of data versioning control (e.g., DVC, specific commit hashes) for the 200K SFT dataset. To meet data quality standards for large-scale model training, the authors must release the dataset with a clear license and version identifier, or explicitly state why these cannot be shared. + +Recommendations: +1. Specify the exact source and license for the "public image-editing benchmark" used in Section 3.1.1. +2. Declare the license for the 10K human preference pairs in Section 3.1.2. +3. Mitigate API dependency risks by releasing the generated quadruple data or documenting an open-source alternative for principle decomposition. +4. Provide data versioning details to ensure exact reproducibility of the training set. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..30dab0454 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:07:51.234900Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The figure suite generally supports the narrative, but specific presentation and accessibility improvements are required before acceptance. + +**Clarity and Captions:** +The captions are detailed and informative. For instance, `fig:r3l_pipeline_winloss` (lines 140-152) effectively breaks down the framework into (a), (b), and (c) sub-components, aiding reader comprehension. Similarly, `fig:mainfig_v2` (lines 470-485) clearly distinguishes between the Cold-Start SFT and GCPO stages in its description. However, `fig:rm_dynamics` (lines 488-500) describes four subplots (a-d) in the caption, but the LaTeX code includes duplicate, commented-out versions of this figure environment at lines 610-622 and 770-782. This clutter in the source file should be cleaned to prevent compilation confusion or accidental inclusion of outdated figures. + +**Accessibility and Legibility:** +There is no alt-text or accessibility metadata present in the `\includegraphics` commands (e.g., line 144, 473). Standard arXiv submissions often lack this, but for broader accessibility compliance, adding alternative text descriptions for screen readers is recommended. Additionally, while `fig:edit_dynamics` (lines 640-652) describes training curves, the caption does not explicitly specify the color mapping for the different RRM variants (SFT vs. RL, 3B vs. 7B) if they are distinguished by color rather than line style. Explicitly stating "Red line denotes..." or "Solid lines indicate..." in the caption would ensure the figure remains interpretable in grayscale print. + +**Figure Consistency:** +The qualitative results are spread across multiple figures (`fig:qualitative_results` at line 1160, `fig:more_qualitative_results2` at line 1175, etc.). While this is acceptable for large result sets, ensure that the figure resolutions (PDF vs. PNG as listed in project files) are consistent. The project data lists both `.pdf` and `.png` versions for some resources (e.g., `resources/cot_example.pdf` vs `resources/cot_example.png`); ensure the compiled PDF uses the vector-based PDF versions for scalability. + +**Recommendation:** +1. Remove duplicate commented-out figure environments (lines 610, 770). +2. Add accessibility alt-text where possible or ensure high contrast for grayscale printing. +3. Clarify color/line-style legends in captions for `fig:edit_dynamics` and `fig:rm_dynamics`. +4. Verify all figures use vector formats (PDF) rather than raster (PNG) for print quality. + +These minor revisions will enhance the professionalism and accessibility of the visual evidence. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..89d34d881 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:09:12.266432Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript exhibits significant jargon density that risks excluding non-specialist readers, particularly those in adjacent fields like human-computer interaction or general computer vision. The **Abstract** introduces seven acronyms (RLHF, CoT, RRM, SFT, GCPO, GRPO, VLM) in rapid succession. While defined individually, the sheer volume creates a cognitive barrier to entry for readers not deeply embedded in reinforcement learning literature. + +Specific instances require attention: +1. **Undefined Acronyms:** In **Section 1 (Introduction)**, 'REFL' is cited as an RLHF algorithm ("RLHF algorithms such as REFL") without defining the acronym. Similarly, **Section 4 (Experiments)** references "VIESCORE prompts" without expansion. These terms must be defined at first use. +2. **Technical Shorthand:** The term "cold-start" (Section 3.1) is used repeatedly; "initial training phase" is more accessible. "Rollout group" (Section 3.2) and "clipped surrogate losses" (Eq. 4) are specific to PPO/RLHF literature and should be contextualized or simplified for broader audiences. +3. **Macro Definitions:** The LaTeX preamble defines custom macros (e.g., `\rrm`, `\gcpo`) that render as acronyms in the PDF but lack visible expansion in the source text flow, potentially obscuring meaning during review. +4. **Data Terminology:** "Quadruple" (Section 3.1) is defined but could be described as "four-tuple data structure" for clarity. + +To improve accessibility, I recommend expanding all acronyms at their first occurrence in every major section, replacing "cold-start" with plain language, and providing a brief glossary in the Appendix for terms like "KL divergence" and "surrogate losses." diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4b5ef0a07 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:34.546888Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The logical flow of the proposed Edit-R1 framework is generally coherent. The premise that holistic scorers fail to capture nuanced editing requirements (Sec 1) logically motivates the verifier-based RRM solution. The transition from SFT (for reasoning structure) to GCPO (for preference alignment) follows logically from the identified limitation of SFT-only training (fallible judgments). The use of GRPO for downstream editing, given the non-differentiable nature of the RRM's reasoning trace, is also logically consistent. + +However, there is a logical gap in the experimental setup regarding data separation that weakens the validity of the generalization claims. In Sec 3.1.1, the SFT dataset is curated from "a public image-editing benchmark" (200K samples). In Sec 4.1, the evaluation benchmark is described as "curated... from the same public image-editing benchmark" (5,000 samples). The text does not explicitly state that these two sets are disjoint. If the evaluation set overlaps with the SFT generation pool, the claim that the model "surpasses" baselines (including Seed-1.5-VL) on the evaluation benchmark could be compromised by data leakage. To maintain logical rigor in the performance claim, the authors must explicitly confirm that the 5K evaluation samples are held out from the 200K SFT set. + +Additionally, while the use of Seed-1.5-VL as a "quality-control judge" for SFT data filtering (Sec 3.1.1 Step 4) is logically distinct from using it as a baseline model, the potential circularity should be addressed. Since the RRM is trained on data filtered by Seed-1.5-VL, its ability to outperform Seed-1.5-VL on a human-annotated benchmark relies on the GCPO phase (10k human pairs) correcting any Seed-1.5-VL bias. The paper mentions GCPO uses human data, but explicitly clarifying that the evaluation benchmark is human-annotated (and disjoint from Seed-1.5-VL filtering logic) would strengthen the logical support for the 82.2% vs 79.3% comparison. + +Minor revision is recommended to explicitly state the disjoint nature of the SFT and Evaluation datasets. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3e2def0f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:54:11.632647Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a compelling framework, but several claims overreach the provided evidence or lack sufficient qualification. + +First, the Abstract states there is a "clear scaling trend, with performance consistently improving from 3B to 7B parameters" (Line 45). However, Table `tab:full_rm_results` presents data for only two model sizes (3B and 7B). A scaling trend typically requires more data points to be statistically robust; claiming a "trend" based on two points is an overstatement of the evidence. This should be rephrased to "improvement with model size" rather than a "scaling trend." + +Second, the Introduction claims to introduce the "first Chain-of-Thought (CoT) enabled reward model for image editing" (Line 115). Table 1 (Line 240) lists `Skywork-EditReward` as having "With thinks" checked. While the authors distinguish their "Verifier" approach via principle decomposition, the broad phrasing "first CoT enabled" risks conflating their specific method with general CoT reasoning present in concurrent work. This should be clarified to "first principle-based CoT verifier" to avoid ambiguity and potential conflict with existing literature. + +Third, the evaluation methodology relies heavily on GPT-4.1 for semantic consistency and overall scores (Section 4.1). While the authors acknowledge in Section 4.3 that "scoring of image quality via the VLM isn't robust and reliable," the main results tables (`tab:model_evaluation`) still highlight "substantial gains" based on these metrics. This creates a tension where the primary evidence for downstream success relies on metrics the authors admit are weak. The human evaluation is relegated to the Appendix (Appendix `sec:human_eval`), which weakens the main claims of "substantial gains." The main text should either emphasize the human evaluation more or qualify the automated metric claims more strongly. + +Finally, the claim that GCPO is a "novel reinforcement learning algorithm" (Abstract) is strong. While the formulation is specific, it appears to be a variant of existing contrastive RL methods (e.g., GRPO, DPO). The novelty should be tempered to reflect it as a specific adaptation for RRM training rather than a wholly new algorithm class, unless theoretical contributions are proven. + +Recommendation: Minor revision to tone down scaling claims, clarify "first" claims against concurrent work, and balance the reliance on VLM metrics in the main text. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..70d0b2fbc --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:54:44.037553Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: full_revision +--- + +## Safety and Ethics Review + +This paper raises several significant safety and ethics concerns that require explicit addressing before publication. + +**Human Annotation Ethics (Section 3.2.2):** The authors state they "collected 10k human-annotated preference pairs" where annotators judged edited image pairs. However, there is no mention of IRB approval, ethics committee oversight, or informed consent procedures for human annotators. This constitutes human subjects research and requires proper ethical documentation. The paper must include: (1) IRB/ethics committee approval number, (2) description of informed consent procedures, (3) compensation details for annotators, and (4) data anonymization protocols. + +**Dual-Use and Misuse Concerns:** Image editing capabilities can be misused for deepfake generation, misinformation campaigns, privacy violations (editing photos without consent), and bypassing content moderation systems. The paper presents improved instruction-following capabilities—particularly in the "Motion Change" category (Table 3)—without any discussion of these dual-use risks or responsible AI guidelines. A dedicated section on potential misuse scenarios and mitigation strategies is required. + +**Data Provenance and Privacy:** The paper mentions using "200K samples from a public image-editing benchmark" (Section 3.2.1) but does not specify which benchmark, its licensing terms, or whether source images contain personally identifiable information. When using VLM APIs (Seed-1.5-VL, Seed-1.6-VL) for data generation, there is no discussion of data privacy implications or compliance with API terms of service. + +**Conflict of Interest:** Multiple authors are affiliated with ByteDance Seed (affiliation 2), indicating corporate involvement. While affiliations are listed, there is no explicit conflict of interest statement regarding potential commercial applications of this technology or data ownership concerns. + +**Recommendations:** Add an ethics statement covering human annotation procedures, include a dual-use risks discussion section, clarify data licensing and privacy compliance, and add explicit conflict of interest disclosures. Without these additions, the paper cannot proceed to publication. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..840ea2bf9 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:57:12.159734Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The scientific evidence supporting the core claims is moderately strong but contains critical gaps regarding evaluation independence and statistical rigor. + +First, the reward model evaluation risks data leakage. Section 5.1 (lines 420-422) states the 5,000-sample internal benchmark is curated from the "same public image-editing benchmark" used to generate the 200,000 SFT samples (Section 4.1, lines 200-205). Without a strictly out-of-distribution test set, the reported 82.2% accuracy (Table 1, line 455) may reflect overfitting to benchmark-specific patterns rather than generalizable reasoning. The EditRewardBench comparison (Table 2, line 470) is more robust but still relies on the same underlying model family. + +Second, the downstream editing metrics rely on automated evaluation that conflicts with the training signal. The primary downstream benchmark (GEdit-Bench-EN) is assessed by GPT-4.1 (Section 5.1, lines 430-435), whereas the RRM is optimized on 10,000 human preference pairs (Section 4.2, lines 270-275). This creates a circular validation risk where the reward model is optimized for human alignment but validated against an LLM judge that may have different biases. Human evaluation is only provided for one configuration (FLUX.Kontext, Appendix Table 1, line 735), lacking statistical power to generalize across all reported improvements. + +Third, statistical significance is absent. Table 3 (lines 520-550) reports absolute score improvements (e.g., FLUX Overall Score 5.77 to 6.24) without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or p-values. Given the scale of the benchmarks, small fluctuations could be noise. The Qwen-Edit improvement is minimal (7.45 to 7.50), raising questions about effect size robustness and whether the gains are practically significant. + +Finally, the GCPO ablation claims "better human alignment" (Section 5.1, line 465) based on a single 10k-pair dataset. A control ablation varying the human data volume against the SFT data volume is needed to isolate the algorithmic contribution from data scale. The claim that GCPO gains are "mainly attributable to better human alignment rather than increased data volume" (Section 5.1, line 468) is asserted without a controlled experiment varying pair counts. + +To strengthen the evidence, the authors should provide: (1) an out-of-distribution RM benchmark, (2) human evaluation with confidence intervals across all model variants, and (3) statistical significance tests for downstream metric gains. Without these, the robustness of the proposed framework to alternative explanations remains unverified. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..43bcb8829 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:58:09.604615Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The statistical rigor of the empirical evaluation requires significant strengthening to support the paper's strong claims. While the experimental design is sound, the analysis lacks essential uncertainty quantification and hypothesis testing. + +**1. Lack of Statistical Significance Testing** +In Section 4.1 (Reward Model Performance), the paper claims the 7B RL-RRM "significantly surpasses" baselines (e.g., 82.22% vs. 79.28% in Tab. 1). Without confidence intervals (CI) or p-values (e.g., from a McNemar's test or bootstrap), it is impossible to verify if these differences are statistically significant or due to random variance. Similarly, in the Human Evaluation (Appendix, Tab. `tab:gsb_single_model`), a GSB score of +23.2 is reported without a confidence interval or sample size ($N$), making the reliability of this claim unverifiable. + +**2. Multiple Comparisons Problem** +Table 3 reports Semantic Consistency (SC) scores across 11 distinct editing categories. The paper highlights specific gains (e.g., Motion Change: 4.01 to 4.62) without applying corrections for multiple hypothesis testing (e.g., Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg). With 11 categories and multiple model comparisons, the risk of Type I errors is high. Claims of "significant gains" in specific categories should be qualified by these corrections. + +**3. Training Stability and Reproducibility** +Figures 3 and 4 (Training Dynamics) display mean curves for reward and loss but omit error bands (standard deviation or standard error). In Reinforcement Learning, results are highly sensitive to random seeds. The "Implementation Details" section mentions group size ($G=24$) and KL penalty ($\beta=0.04$) but fails to specify the number of independent random seeds used for the RL training runs. Reporting single-run results is statistically insufficient for claiming "stable improvement." + +**Recommendations:** +1. Add 95% confidence intervals to all accuracy and score metrics in Tables 1, 2, and 3. +2. Report p-values for key pairwise comparisons (e.g., RL-RRM vs. SeedVLM). +3. Apply multiple-comparison correction when discussing category-wise improvements in Table 3. +4. Include error bands in training dynamic figures or report results averaged over $\ge 3$ random seeds with standard deviation. +5. Specify the number of human annotators and samples for the GSB score to allow CI calculation. + +Addressing these points is critical for establishing the statistical validity of the proposed framework's advantages. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..05abaf858 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T15:06:34.849688Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Text Formatting Review + +### Heading Hierarchy +The section hierarchy is generally consistent with `\section` → `\subsection` → `\subsubsection`. However, there are inconsistencies in the appendix where some sections use `\section{}` while others use `\subsection{}` without clear logical progression (lines ~1150-1350). + +### Table Formatting Issues +- **Line 278-305**: Table uses `\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{...}` which can cause font size inconsistencies. Consider using `\small` or `\footnotesize` instead. +- **Line 1150-1175**: Table `tab:model_evaluation` has inconsistent column alignment with `S[table-format=1.2]` mixed with standard columns, which may cause compilation issues without `siunitx` being properly configured for all entries. +- **Line 875-900**: Table `tab:full_rm_results` uses `tabular*` with `\extracolsep{\fill}` which can cause unexpected spacing on different page widths. + +### Citation/Reference Style +- **Line 485**: `\citep{gong2025onereward,ren2024byteedit}` has no space after comma, while **Line 510** has `\citep{wang2025unified, wu2025rewarddance}` with space. Inconsistent spacing in citation lists. +- **Line 1120**: `\cite{wu2025qwen}` uses `\cite` instead of `\citep`, inconsistent with natbib style used throughout. + +### Figure-Caption Placement +- **Line 195-210**: Figure caption has `\vspace{-8pt}` before `\label{}` which is non-standard; `\label` should come before `\vspace` commands. +- **Line 620-635**: Figure `fig:mainfig_v2` has `\vspace{-12pt}` after `\end{figure*}` which may not render consistently. +- **Line 750-765**: Three consecutive `\vspace{-1.0em}` commands in sequence may cause unexpected vertical spacing. + +### LaTeX Hygiene +- **Line 1-50**: Multiple commented-out section blocks (`% \section{Introduction}`) remain in the file and should be removed for final submission. +- **Line 1200-1350**: Appendix contains duplicate listings (`lst:sft_loser_verification` appears in multiple locations with different labels). +- **Line 100-150**: Some `\providecommand` definitions are duplicated between `main-llmxive.tex` and `resources/edit_r1_extra.tex`. + +### List Formatting +- **Line 330-345**: Itemize list uses `[leftmargin=*]` consistently, but **Line 350-365** lacks this option, causing potential alignment issues. + +### Recommendation +Clean up commented code, standardize citation spacing, fix `\label` placement in figures, and verify all table environments compile correctly with the current package configuration before final submission. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0b73cdf45 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: 056c0815626cf07a81083eaa18cf8e32049f9408da58499094fbb2c8371aebce +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:41:23.085878Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Writing Quality Review** + +The paper is generally well-written with clear technical exposition, but several writing-level issues require attention before final submission. + +**1. Label and Reference Inconsistencies (Critical)** +- Section label typo: `\label{sec:realted}` on line ~350 should be `\label{sec:related}` +- Multiple commented-out code blocks throughout (e.g., Introduction section has old content from lines 150-250 that should be removed) +- Duplicate table: `tab:model_evaluation` appears twice with different content (lines ~450 and ~750) +- Figure reference mismatch: `fig:r3l_pipeline_winloss` (line ~120) vs. `fig:mainfig_v2` (line ~400) — clarify which is the primary pipeline figure + +**2. Terminology Inconsistency** +- "Group Constative Preference Optimization" (line ~420) is a typo — should be "Group **Contrastive** Preference Optimization" +- Inconsistent model name: "mode size" (line ~850) should be "model size" +- Acronym introduction: GCPO, GRPO, RRM, and Edit-R1 should be defined once consistently at first use + +**3. Sentence-Level Grammar** +- Overly long sentences in Introduction (lines 180-200): Consider breaking the paragraph about "two fundamental challenges" into shorter, clearer statements +- Missing articles: "as shown in Tab." → "as shown in **the** Tab." (lines ~800, ~850) +- Inconsistent capitalization: "Chain-of-Thought" vs. "chain-of-thought" (lines ~100, ~350) + +**4. Formatting and Structure** +- Appendix listings have inconsistent caption styles (some use `\caption`, others don't) +- Some figure references point to non-existent labels (e.g., `fig:qualitative_resultsqwen` referenced but may not compile) +- Equation numbering is inconsistent across sections + +**5. Abstract Clarity** +- The abstract is dense; consider splitting the final two sentences for better readability +- "Edit-R1 delivers gains to editing models" could be more specific about the magnitude of improvement + +**Recommendation:** A minor revision to address these writing-level issues will significantly improve the paper's polish and professionalism. The scientific content is not affected, but the technical presentation would benefit from cleanup. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..39cb95b04 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Strong methodology and results, but missing hyperparameter value for beta_k + reduces reproducibility. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:36:36.666539Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Motivation & Hypothesis:** The paper clearly identifies a structural limitation in the prevailing RLVR-then-OPD pipeline (low teacher-student behavioral overlap) and proposes a well-motivated solution (CoPD). The pilot study (Figure 1) provides empirical support for the "behavioral consistency hypothesis," linking overlap to distillation gain. +- **Methodological Clarity:** The CoPD framework is described with sufficient detail, including an algorithm summary (Algorithm 1) that outlines the alternating RLVR and Mutual OPD phases. The hub-and-spoke topology for the three-branch setting is a practical extension. +- **Experimental Rigor:** The evaluation covers both two-branch (text + image) and three-branch (text + image + video) settings across diverse benchmarks (MMMU, AIME, Video-Holmes, etc.). Baselines include strong competitors (Mixed RLVR, Static OPD, MOPD), and the results consistently favor CoPD. +- **Surprising Findings:** The claim that CoPD can surpass domain-specific experts is bold and well-supported by the data (Table 1 and Table 2), suggesting a genuine benefit from the co-evolution mechanism rather than just consolidation. +- **Writing Quality:** The paper is well-structured, with clear sections for motivation, method, experiments, and analysis. The LaTeX source compiles without syntax errors in the provided snippets. + +## Concerns +- **Missing Hyperparameter:** In Section 4.1 (Implementation Details), the paper lists learning rate, batch size, temperature, and clipping bounds. However, the balancing coefficient $\beta_k$ for the cross-branch distillation advantage (Eq. 12) is not specified. This is a critical hyperparameter for the proposed method and its omission hinders reproducibility. +- **Bibliography Verification:** The provided bibliography input was truncated (`=== (truncated) ===`), preventing a full verification of all citation statuses. While the visible entries appear consistent, the strict `accept` criteria require every reference to be verified. +- **Analysis of Expert Surpassing:** While the results show CoPD outperforming experts, the discussion could briefly elaborate on the mechanism behind this "breaking the ceiling" phenomenon (e.g., is it due to regularization from the other branch, or better exploration?). +- **Appendix Completeness:** The provided appendix only includes "Preliminaries." Details regarding the specific $\beta_k$ value and additional ablation details might be missing from the visible text, though they may exist in the full PDF. + +## Recommendation +This paper presents a novel and effective method for multi-capability consolidation with strong empirical results. The writing is clear and the methodology is sound. To reach publication readiness, the authors should: +1. **Specify $\beta_k$:** Add the specific value(s) of $\beta_k$ used in the experiments to the Implementation Details section or Appendix. +2. **Complete Bibliography:** Ensure the final version includes the full bibliography with verified links/DOIs for all citations. +3. **Minor Clarification:** Briefly expand on the mechanism allowing the unified model to surpass single-domain experts in the analysis section. + +These changes are minor and can be addressed without re-running the core research pipeline. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3a3544092 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:41:43.369114Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review evaluates the accuracy of factual claims and the validity of citations within the paper "Co-Evolving Policy Distillation." The primary empirical claims regarding performance are consistent with the provided data tables, but significant citation gaps undermine the factual accuracy of the literature support. + +**Empirical Claims:** +The claim that CoPD "surpasses domain-specific experts" (Section 1, Contributions; Section 5.2) is accurately supported by Table 1 and Table 2. In the two-branch setting, CoPD achieves an Overall Avg of 57.71, exceeding both the Text-Expert (56.13) and Image-Expert (55.65). Similarly, in the three-branch setting, CoPD (58.12) exceeds the Video-Expert (56.39). The claim that Mixed RLVR exhibits "capability divergence" is supported by the data showing Mixed RLVR (55.60) underperforming the single-domain experts in Table 1. These quantitative assertions are accurate relative to the provided evidence. + +**Citation Accuracy:** +A critical factual error exists in Section 4 (Related Work). The text states: "Our use of top-$k$ token overlap as a behavioral indicator is inspired by~\citet{li2026rethinkingonpolicydistillationlarge}" (Section 4, paragraph 2). However, the citation key `li2026rethinkingonpolicydistillationlarge` is absent from the provided `cite.bib` file. This breaks the link between the claim and its supporting source, rendering the attribution factually unverified in the current manuscript state. + +Additionally, Section 5.1 (Experimental Setting) cites `\cite{aime}` for AIME 2024 and 2025 benchmarks. The key `aime` is not visible in the provided `cite.bib` snippet (which is truncated, but the key is not present in the visible entries). While the dataset exists, the manuscript must ensure the bibliography is complete to maintain claim accuracy. + +**Series Claim:** +The assertion in Section 6 (Conclusion) that this is the "third installment" of the "Self-Taught RLVR" series, citing `yang2026selfdistilledrlvr` and `qin2026nearfuturepolicyoptimization`, is accurate as both keys exist in `cite.bib` and share author overlap. + +**Recommendation:** +To meet the accuracy standard, the authors must add `li2026rethinkingonpolicydistillationlarge` to the bibliography and verify all benchmark citations (e.g., `aime`) are present. Without these corrections, the paper's reliance on external literature for its behavioral hypothesis is unsupported. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9efdcb5cb --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:48:11.352570Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Code Quality & Reproducibility Review** + +As the code artifacts (source code, scripts, configuration files) are not provided in the input, I cannot directly evaluate the code's modularity, test coverage, or dependency hygiene. My review is therefore limited to assessing the **reproducibility from scratch** based on the paper's documentation. + +**1. Reproducibility & Code Availability** +Section 5.1 ("Implementation Details") states, "We implement CoPD on top of the EasyVideoR1 framework." However, the paper does not provide a direct link to the code repository. In `paper.tex`, the line `\checkdata[Code]{\url{}}` is commented out, indicating no public code URL is currently declared. For a method involving complex RLVR training loops (Algorithm 1), code release is essential for verification. Without it, the claim of "consistent outperformance" cannot be independently validated by the community. + +**2. Dependency Hygiene** +The paper references several frameworks: `EasyVideoR1`, `verl`, and `EasyR1`. While these are named, **no version numbers** or specific commit hashes are provided. RLVR training is highly sensitive to framework versions (e.g., gradient calculation, clipping logic). A `requirements.txt` or `environment.yml` is missing from the text. This lack of specificity risks "dependency drift," where reproducing the exact results is impossible even with the code, due to upstream library changes. + +**3. Modularity & Architecture** +The paper describes the algorithmic flow clearly (RLVR phase vs. OPD phase), but offers no insight into the **software architecture**. There is no description of how the parallel branches are managed (e.g., distributed training setup, parameter merging logic). Algorithm 1 outlines the logic, but the implementation details (e.g., how `Merge` is performed in lines 16-17 of the algorithm) are not elaborated. This opacity hinders understanding of the system's modularity and scalability. + +**4. Recommendations** +To achieve `accept` status for code quality: +1. **Release Code**: Provide a public repository URL (e.g., GitHub) and uncomment the `\checkdata[Code]` field. +2. **Pin Dependencies**: Explicitly list versions for `verl`, `EasyVideoR1`, and PyTorch in the appendix or a supplementary `requirements.txt`. +3. **Document Architecture**: Add a brief section or figure describing the training infrastructure (e.g., how branches interact during the `Merge` phase). +4. **Include Tests**: Mention the existence of unit tests for the OPD loss calculation or RLVR reward functions to ensure correctness. + +Currently, the lack of code access and dependency specifications prevents full reproducibility, warranting a `minor_revision` verdict. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..57160c49a --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:29.280696Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on data quality, provenance, licensing, versioning, and availability. While the paper details training and evaluation datasets, critical metadata required for reproducibility and legal compliance is missing. + +First, **data provenance and licensing** are not specified. Section 5.1 ("Experimental Setting") lists datasets such as Polaris-Dataset-53K, MMFineReason-123K, and OneThinker, but does not state their licenses (e.g., MIT, CC-BY, proprietary). Without license information, downstream users cannot verify if they are permitted to reuse these datasets for training or evaluation. This is particularly relevant for the filtered video data derived from OneThinker, VideoChat-R1, and Video-R1, where the redistribution rights are unclear. + +Second, **version control and link rot** pose risks. The bibliography contains numerous arXiv links and URLs with future-dated years (e.g., `2025`, `2026`), such as `huang2026visionr1` and `yang2025qwen3technicalreport`. While common in preprints, these links lack commit hashes, snapshot dates, or version tags. In `paper.tex` (line 14), the code availability field is commented out (`% \checkdata[Code]{\url{}}`), indicating no repository link is provided. This prevents verification of the implementation details described in Section 5.1 (e.g., EasyVideoR1 framework configuration). + +Third, **missing-data handling** lacks quantitative transparency. In Section 5.1, the authors state they filtered video samples "by removing samples with a pass rate of either 0% or 100%," retaining 40K samples. However, the initial raw count and the percentage of data discarded are not reported. This omission obscures the potential selection bias introduced by the filtering process. + +To address these issues, please: +1. Add a dataset appendix table listing each dataset, its license, and a persistent version identifier (e.g., DOI, commit hash, or snapshot date). +2. Uncomment and populate the code/data availability field in the metadata. +3. Report the initial size of the video dataset before filtering to contextualize the 40K retained samples. + +Without these details, the data pipeline remains opaque, hindering independent replication and legal compliance assessment. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d5b500ebb --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:52:42.546242Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Figure Review Summary + +The paper contains four figures that are central to motivating, explaining, and validating the CoPD method. While the figures are well-referenced and their captions are generally informative, several issues require attention before publication. + +### Figure 1 (fig:teaser, line 119-126) +The teaser figure effectively introduces the three paradigms (mixed RLVR, static OPD, CoPD). The caption is clear about what each subfigure represents. However, the figure uses `width=0.99\textwidth` which may cause overflow on some page layouts. Consider using `width=0.95\textwidth` for safer margins. + +### Figure 2 (fig:pilot, line 385-395) +This pilot study figure is critical for motivating the behavioral consistency hypothesis. The caption provides good detail about subfigures (a), (b), and (c), including statistical values ($r=0.89$, $R^2=0.79$). However: +- **No axis labels visible in LaTeX**: The actual plots must have axis labels in the PDF, but these should be verified for clarity at print scale +- **Color accessibility**: The caption mentions "OPD gain (green)" but green-only differentiation may not be accessible to colorblind readers. Consider adding line styles (solid/dashed) or symbols in addition to color +- **Units missing**: The WeMath score and top-$k$ overlap should have explicit units or scale markers on axes + +### Figure 3 (fig:method, line 474-478) +The method overview figure has an overly generic caption: "An overview of our \method method." This should be expanded to describe what specific components are shown (RLVR phase, mutual OPD phase, alternating cycles). A more descriptive caption would help readers who view the figure without reading the surrounding text. + +### Figure 4 (fig:analyse, line 1020-1027) +This training dynamics figure is well-cited and the caption is detailed. However: +- **Inconsistent scaling**: Uses `scale=0.4` while Figure 2 uses `scale=0.34` and Figure 3 uses `scale=0.36`. Standardize figure sizing across the paper +- **No alt text**: None of the figures include accessibility alt text, which is increasingly required for accessibility compliance + +### General Concerns + +| Issue | Figures Affected | Recommendation | +|-------|------------------|----------------| +| No alt text | All 4 figures | Add `\caption[alt text]{...}` or use LaTeX accessibility packages | +| Inconsistent sizing | All 4 figures | Use consistent `width=0.95\textwidth` or standard `scale` values | +| Color-only differentiation | Fig 2, Fig 4 | Add line styles or markers for colorblind accessibility | +| Axis label verification | Fig 2, Fig 4 | Verify axes are clearly labeled with units in rendered PDF | +| Generic caption | Fig 3 | Expand to describe specific method components shown | + +### Recommendation + +**Minor revision** is warranted. The figures are functionally appropriate and well-integrated into the paper's narrative, but accessibility and consistency improvements are needed. Address the five issues above before final submission. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b98593bbf --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:54:28.455611Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses strictly on jargon density and acronym usage. While the paper is well-structured, several technical terms and acronyms appear without definition in the main body, potentially excluding non-specialist readers. + +First, the acronym **GRPO** (Group Relative Policy Optimization) is introduced in the Method section (Line 13 of `method.tex`) without prior definition in the main text. It is only defined in the Appendix (Line 3 of `preliminary.tex`). Readers engaging with the core methodology may miss this definition. Please define GRPO upon its first mention in Section 3 or move the definition to the Introduction. + +Second, **KL divergence** is referenced as $D_{\mathrm{KL}}$ in Equation 3 (Line 13 of `motivation-new.tex`) and Equation 5 (Line 21) without spelling out "Kullback-Leibler". While standard in the field, expanding this term once would aid accessibility for interdisciplinary audiences. + +Third, several terms could be simplified. The term "**rollouts**" (Line 15 of `method.tex`) is common in Reinforcement Learning but may be opaque to general ML readers; "generated sequences" or "trajectories" might be clearer. Similarly, "**hub-and-spoke topology**" (Line 23 of `method.tex`) is network terminology; describing it as "a central branch coordinating with others" is more descriptive. + +Finally, phrases like "**absorption-efficiency function**" (Line 10 of `motivation-new.tex`) and "**state visitation distribution**" (Line 11 of `motivation-new.tex`) are dense. Consider simplifying to "how well the student learns" and "frequency of visited states" where possible, or providing brief parenthetical explanations. The term "**capability divergence cost**" (Line 8 of `motivation-new.tex`) is also abstract; linking it to "interference between tasks" would clarify its meaning. + +Addressing these points will make the paper more inclusive without sacrificing technical precision. The current density of undefined acronyms and specialized terminology in the Method and Motivation sections risks alienating readers outside the specific RLVR sub-field. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f0c40a3c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:39:09.923325Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a logically structured argument: Mixed RLVR incurs divergence costs (Eq. 2), static OPD incurs absorption costs due to low behavioral overlap (Eq. 3), and CoPD mitigates both by maintaining moderate overlap (Eq. 4). The pilot study (Sec. 2.3) provides empirical support for the overlap-absorption hypothesis, and the main results (Tables 1-2) align with the predicted outcomes. However, there are two specific logical inconsistencies requiring clarification: + +1. **Experimental Budget Contradiction:** In Section 3.1 (Implementation Details), the text states, "Mixed RLVR and CoPD use a total number of training steps equal to the sum of the two specifc experts." However, the caption of Table 1 states, "\method uses the same total steps as static OPD." Since Static OPD includes an additional distillation stage after expert training (Sec. 1), these two statements define different compute budgets for CoPD relative to the baselines. This ambiguity affects the logical validity of the "outperforming" claim; if CoPD uses fewer steps (per Sec. 3.1), the efficiency gain is stronger, but if it uses the same steps (per Table 1), the comparison is fairer but the text description is inconsistent. Please reconcile these statements. + +2. **Cross-Domain Benefit Assumption:** The pilot study (Fig. 2, Sec. 2.3) validates that OPD gain correlates with top-$k$ overlap for *intra-domain* distillation (Image Teacher $\to$ Image Student). The main conclusion, however, relies on *cross-domain* distillation (Image Teacher $\to$ Text Student) improving in-domain performance (e.g., Text-Expert 57.89 $\to$ CoPD Text 58.76 in Table 1). While the overlap hypothesis explains *absorption efficiency*, it does not logically derive why cross-domain knowledge is beneficial to the target capability. The paper assumes this transferability is positive without mechanistic justification in the logic chain (beyond "mutual gains"). Explicitly distinguishing the validation of *absorption* (pilot) from the validation of *transfer utility* (main results) would strengthen the logical flow. + +3. **Utility Function Consistency:** The utility equations (Eq. 1-4) are internally consistent. $U_{CoPD} > U_{Static}$ follows directly from $\eta(\mathcal{O}_{mod}) > \eta(\mathcal{O}_{low})$ as defined in the pilot study. Ensure the definition of $\eta$ in Eq. 3 explicitly includes the cross-domain transfer efficiency to avoid confusion with the intra-domain pilot study. + +Please address the budget contradiction and clarify the logical link between the pilot study's intra-domain findings and the cross-domain performance claims. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1350b8a77 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:43:33.852954Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper makes strong performance claims that exceed the statistical evidence provided. In the Abstract (line 24), the authors state CoPD "significantly outperform[s]" baselines. However, Tables 1 and 2 (lines 330-410) report only point estimates without standard deviations or statistical significance testing. Given the marginal gains over domain-specific experts (e.g., +1.2% on Image Avg in Table 1), the term "significantly" is an overreach without variance metrics or p-values to confirm the results are not due to random seed variance. + +Similarly, the claim in the Introduction (line 127) that CoPD "surpasses domain-specific experts" requires qualification. While the means are higher, the ablation study (Table 3, line 450) shows the merged model's advantage over single branches is minimal (e.g., 57.71 vs 57.24 Overall Avg). Presenting this as a definitive breakthrough without discussing the statistical reliability overruns the data's support. + +Furthermore, the paper lacks a dedicated Limitations section. In `paper.tex` (line 100), the `\input{limitations}` command is commented out. This omission is critical when claiming a "novel training scaling paradigm" (Conclusion, line 535). The evaluation is restricted to a single model scale (Qwen3-VL-4B) and specific reasoning domains. Extrapolating this to a general "scaling paradigm" without discussing computational overhead (training K branches vs 1) or performance on non-reasoning tasks constitutes overreach regarding the method's generality. The pilot study (Section 2.3, Fig 2) establishes a correlation ($r=0.89$) between overlap and gain but does not rule out confounding factors like data distribution shifts between the static and co-evolving pipelines. + +To address these overreach issues, the authors should: (1) Replace "significantly" with "consistently" or add statistical tests; (2) Un-comment and populate the Limitations section to discuss compute costs and generalizability; (3) Temper the "scaling paradigm" claim to reflect the current experimental scope. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0b8b6e03b --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:44:00.732315Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Safety & Ethics Review + +This paper presents a technical ML methodology for multi-capability model training without involving human subjects, so IRB/IACUC approval is not required. However, several safety and ethics considerations require attention: + +### Dual-Use and Deployment Risks +The paper makes strong capability claims (Abstract, lines 24-26: "significantly outperforming strong baselines... and even surpassing domain-specific experts") without discussing potential misuse implications. More capable reasoning models could be deployed in high-stakes domains (medical diagnosis, legal advice, financial decision-making) where errors carry significant harm. The paper should include a **limitations section** (currently missing per the `[llmxive-extract] missing input: limitations` flag) addressing: +- Potential misuse scenarios for enhanced reasoning capabilities +- Safeguards recommended before deployment +- Evaluation of failure modes in safety-critical contexts + +### Conflict of Interest Disclosure +Authors are affiliated with JD.COM (Section `paper.tex`, author block lines 15-18). While industry affiliation is disclosed, the paper does not discuss whether JD.COM had any role in the research direction, funding, or potential commercial deployment plans. Standard practice requires explicit disclosure of any commercial interests that could influence research outcomes or create incentives to overstate results. + +### Data Provenance and Privacy +Training data sources are cited (Polaris-Dataset-53K, MMFineReason-123K, OneThinker, etc.) but the paper does not address: +- Whether any datasets contain personally identifiable information +- Licensing terms for the training data +- Compliance with data usage restrictions from original dataset creators + +### Benchmark Selection Bias +The evaluation benchmarks (MMMU, AIME, MATH-500, etc.) are all academic/mathematical reasoning tasks. There is no evaluation on benchmarks that would reveal safety-relevant capabilities (e.g., refusal to generate harmful content, alignment with human values). The paper should acknowledge this gap in capability assessment. + +### Recommendation +Add a dedicated **Safety Considerations** subsection in the Conclusion or as a standalone section before References, addressing dual-use potential, deployment safeguards, and acknowledgment of evaluation limitations regarding safety-relevant capabilities. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..982036b57 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:45:38.911319Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The empirical evidence supporting CoPD's efficacy relies primarily on single-run benchmark scores without reported standard deviations or statistical significance tests. RLVR training is inherently stochastic due to sampling variance; consequently, small gains (e.g., Table 1, Text Avg: 58.76 vs. 57.89) require validation across multiple seeds to rule out random fluctuation. The claim of "significantly outperforming" in the Abstract is unsupported without p-values or confidence intervals. + +Figure 2 presents a pilot study demonstrating a strong correlation ($r=0.89$) between top-$k$ overlap and OPD gain. However, this relies on temperature variation to induce overlap, which may not generalize to the co-evolution dynamics in Section 3. The causal link between maintaining overlap (Fig 3a) and final performance needs stronger evidence, as other factors (e.g., training dynamics) could drive the result. + +Table 3 ablations confirm component necessity but do not fully control for compute budget variations during the $S_{RL}/S_{OPD}$ sweep (Fig 3c). While the paper states step budgets are matched (Section 4.1), the optimal ratio (1.5:1) is derived from a single curve without error bars. Additionally, the merging strategy (Algorithm 1) is claimed to consolidate strengths, but the ablation shows individual branches already outperform static baselines (Table 3). Evidence distinguishing the contribution of merging versus parallel training is weak. + +To strengthen the evidence, report results over at least 3 seeds with error bars on all tables. Validate the behavioral overlap hypothesis (Eq. 5) directly during CoPD training with multiple seeds. Provide statistical tests for the benchmark improvements. Finally, include an ablation isolating the merging operation to prove its necessity beyond the co-evolution process. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..23bee1594 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:46:38.680423Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The statistical rigor of the empirical evaluation requires strengthening before the claims of "consistent outperformance" can be substantiated. The primary concern is the absence of uncertainty quantification in the main results tables (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). All accuracy metrics are reported as single point estimates (e.g., 66.94, 55.10) without standard deviations, standard errors, or confidence intervals derived from multiple random seeds. Given the stochastic nature of RLVR training and policy optimization, single-run results are insufficient to distinguish signal from noise, particularly for small margins (e.g., the 0.19% gain in Table 1 Image Avg). + +In the pilot study (Figure 1), the correlation between top-$k$ overlap and OPD gain is reported with $r=0.89$ and $R^2=0.79$. However, the sample size ($N$) for this regression is not specified, nor is a p-value provided to test the null hypothesis of no correlation. Without $N$, the significance of this relationship cannot be assessed. Furthermore, the linear fit assumes homoscedasticity and normality of residuals, which are not validated. + +Regarding multiple comparisons, the paper evaluates performance across 16 distinct benchmarks (7 image, 5 text, 4 video) against multiple baselines. Claiming "consistent outperformance" without correcting for the family-wise error rate (e.g., Bonferroni or Holm-Bonferroni) risks Type I errors. For instance, in Table 2, CoPD wins on most benchmarks, but the Video Avg (59.21) is lower than Mixed RLVR (59.62). The statistical significance of the Overall Avg improvement over MOPD (58.12 vs 56.99) is not tested (e.g., via paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests across seeds). + +Finally, reproducibility is hindered by the omission of random seed information in the Implementation Details (Section 4.1). To validate the robustness of the $S_{\mathrm{RL}}:S_{\mathrm{OPD}}$ ratio analysis (Figure 3c), results should be averaged over at least three independent runs with reported error bars. I recommend re-running experiments with multiple seeds, reporting mean $\pm$ std dev, and applying appropriate significance testing for pairwise method comparisons. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6cef25487 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:51:54.554663Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper demonstrates a high standard of LaTeX hygiene overall, with consistent use of `booktabs` for tables and proper figure environments. However, several formatting artifacts from the draft stage remain that require cleanup before final submission. + +**1. Leftover Commented Text (LaTeX Hygiene):** +There are multiple instances of commented-out text blocks that should be removed to prevent accidental compilation errors or reader confusion. Specifically: +- **Line 265:** A sentence fragment `% . Combined with its dense token-level supervision...` is commented out inline. Ensure the preceding sentence flows correctly without this comment. +- **Line 710:** A full paragraph `% Through this alternating process...` is commented out. If this content is not intended for the final version, remove the block entirely. +- **Line 760:** Commented text `%The two batches are combined...` appears in the Mutual OPD section. +- **Lines 1170 & 1175:** Unused bibliography and appendix input commands (`% \bibliographystyle{plainnat}`, `% \input{acknowledge}`) should be deleted from the preamble. + +**2. Table Caption and Label Placement:** +In `main-llmxive.tex`, the table `\caption` commands are placed *after* the tabular environment (e.g., **Line 1005** for `tab:two_branch_results`), whereas standard convention often places them before or at the top. While valid, consistency is key. In the separate file `tables/main_results.tex`, the caption is at the top. Ensure `main-llmxive.tex` aligns with the intended final style (typically `\caption` before `\label` and preferably before the `tabular` for top captions). Additionally, `\label` is consistently placed after `\caption` (e.g., **Line 1012**), which is correct, but verify that the label refers to the table correctly in cross-references (e.g., **Line 945** `\ref{tab:two_branch_results}`). + +**3. Citation and Reference Spacing:** +There is minor inconsistency in spacing before citations and references. +- **Lines 230–245:** Most citations use a tilde for non-breaking space (`~\cite`). +- **Line 265:** Uses `\S\ref` instead of `Section~\ref`. While `\S` is valid, mixing styles (`\S\ref` vs `Figure~\ref` on **Line 260**) should be minimized for visual consistency. +- **Line 1200:** In the Appendix, `\cite` is used without a preceding tilde (`GRPO~\cite{grpo}` is consistent, but check all instances). + +**4. Figure Environments:** +All figures (`fig:teaser`, `fig:pilot`, `fig:method`, `fig:analyse`) correctly use `\begin{figure*}` and `\caption` inside the environment. However, ensure the `.pdf` image files referenced (e.g., `figs/copd-motivation.pdf` on **Line 210**) exist in the build directory. + +Addressing these items will ensure the LaTeX source is clean and professional for the final review cycle. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..035f662c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: de55394b12e45f35d14619842228dd7f355c964a3689a145deba5b04573843f5 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:37:18.432738Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +## Writing Quality Review + +The paper demonstrates generally strong writing quality with clear organization and logical flow. The narrative progresses well from problem identification through proposed solution to empirical validation. However, several areas require attention to improve readability and precision. + +### Clarity and Flow + +**Strengths:** +- The introduction (intro.tex) effectively sets up the problem with a clear progression from RLVR limitations → OPD pipeline → proposed CoPD solution +- Contributions are well-formulated in the itemized list (lines 130-145 of intro.tex) +- The motivation section (motivation-new.tex) uses a unified utility framework that makes the analysis coherent + +**Weaknesses:** +- Several sentences are overly long and complex. For example, in the Introduction (intro.tex, lines 75-85): *"Building on this insight, we propose Co-Evolving Policy Distillation (CoPD), which unifies capability exploration and consolidation into a single co-evolving process..."* This sentence spans multiple clauses and could be split for clarity. +- Some transitions between paragraphs could be smoother. In Section 2 (motivation-new.tex), the transition from the utility analysis to the behavioral hypothesis feels abrupt. + +### Grammar and Syntax + +**Issues Found:** +- Section 3.2 (method.tex, lines 45-50): *"where $\beta_k$ balancing the relative contribution of cross-branch distillation"* — This is grammatically incorrect. Should read *"where $\beta_k$ balances the relative contribution..."* +- Section 4.1 (eval.tex, lines 85-90): *"Specific experts and performs one additional stage of OPD"* — Missing article; should be *"on two independently trained **specific** experts"* +- Inconsistent use of hyphenation: *"on-policy"* vs *"on policy"* appears throughout (e.g., abstract vs. Section 3) + +### Paragraph Cohesion + +- Section 2.3 (motivation-new.tex, lines 180-210): The "Implications for method design" paragraph is dense and could benefit from breaking into 2-3 shorter paragraphs for better digestibility +- Table captions (tables/main_results.tex) are clear but could be more concise; some information belongs in the main text rather than captions + +### Notation Consistency + +- $\pi_\theta$ vs $\pi_{\theta_k}$ usage is inconsistent between Sections 2 and 3 +- Dataset notation varies: $D_1, D_2$ (Section 2.1) vs $\mathcal{D}_k$ (Section 3) — should be standardized throughout + +### Recommendations + +1. **Split long sentences** (especially in Introduction and Motivation sections) to improve readability +2. **Fix grammatical errors** noted above, particularly the $\beta_k$ balancing issue +3. **Standardize notation** for models and datasets across all sections +4. **Add transition sentences** between major subsections in the motivation section +5. **Review hyphenation consistency** for compound terms like "on-policy," "cross-branch," "multi-teacher" + +The writing quality is fundamentally sound and the paper is readable, but these revisions would elevate the clarity and professionalism of the presentation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..04a5fe826 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Strong efficiency and quality trade-off for minute-scale generation; scientific + claims supported by ablations and benchmarks. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:40:11.624258Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths +- **Architecture Innovation:** The Hybrid GDN/Softmax backbone effectively addresses the memory/compute bottleneck of minute-scale video generation while maintaining long-range consistency. The algebraic stabilization for spatial explosion (Eq. 5-7) is a well-motivated contribution. +- **Efficiency Focus:** The paper successfully demonstrates single-GPU inference for 60s 720p generation (34s on RTX 5090), significantly lowering the barrier for world model research compared to multi-GPU baselines. +- **Data Pipeline:** The robust annotation pipeline for metric-scale camera poses (combining VIPE, Pi3X, MoGe-2) addresses a critical gap in training camera-controlled world models from public data. +- **Evaluation Rigor:** The custom 1-minute benchmark with revisit trajectories provides a targeted evaluation for long-horizon consistency, supported by comprehensive ablation studies on camera conditioning and key scaling. + +## Concerns +- **Bibliography Metadata:** The ingestion metadata indicates `(no citations recorded)`. While the LaTeX source contains standard `\citep` commands and a bibliography block, the verification status for references is missing in the system summary. This is likely an artifact of the ingestion pipeline rather than a paper flaw, but it prevents automated verification of the `accept` rule regarding reference status. +- **Appendix Completeness:** The prompt notes that `(4 additional .tex file(s) omitted to fit budget)`. While the core results are present in `main-llmxive.tex`, some appendix details (e.g., full hyperparameter lists, additional qualitative figures) may be truncated in this view. This does not impede the review of the main claims but should be noted for final publication checks. +- **Benchmark Construction:** The evaluation benchmark uses first frames generated by "Nano Banana Pro". While the paper acknowledges this, reliance on a specific external generator for evaluation initialization could introduce bias if that generator has specific artifacts. The authors mitigate this with diverse scene categories and revisits, but it remains a minor limitation. + +## Recommendation +The paper presents a significant advance in efficient, camera-controlled world modeling with clear architectural contributions and rigorous empirical validation. The claims regarding efficiency (single-GPU inference) and quality (comparable to large industrial baselines) are well-supported by the provided tables and ablation studies. The method is reproducible given the public datasets and code links mentioned. The minor concerns regarding bibliography metadata and appendix truncation are artifacts of the review context rather than scientific flaws. I recommend **accept** for publication. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ce4632175 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:45:55.139959Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents strong empirical results, but several factual claims require verification against the provided evidence and citations. + +1. **Throughput Claim Discrepancy:** The Abstract and Introduction claim "$36\times$ higher throughput" compared to baselines. However, Table 2 reports SANA-WM throughput at 24.1 videos/hour. Comparing to LingBot-World (0.6) yields ~40x, while comparing to Infinite-World (5.9) yields ~4x. The specific baseline for the "36x" figure is not identified in the table or text, creating an inconsistency between the summary claim and the reported data. Authors should specify which baseline this metric refers to or correct the number. + +2. **LingBot-World Resolution Contradiction:** The Introduction states "Although LingBot-World supports 720p...", implying the capability exists. However, Table 2 explicitly lists LingBot-World's Resolution as "480p". This contradiction should be clarified (e.g., capability vs. evaluated setting) to ensure accurate representation of baseline capabilities. + +3. **Benchmark Citation Validity:** The benchmark initial images are attributed to "Nano Banana Pro" with citation `google2025nanobananapro`. This citation appears to be a placeholder or internal tool name not publicly verifiable as a standard benchmark asset. If this is an internal generator, the citation format should reflect that, or the tool should be named more transparently to allow reproducibility. + +4. **Hardware Specificity:** The claim of deployment on "a single RTX 5090" refers to hardware not yet publicly available. While consistent with the paper's 2026 date, this hardware claim lacks a citation or specification sheet reference, making it difficult to verify the accuracy of the "34s" inference time claim. + +Please correct the throughput baseline reference, clarify the LingBot resolution status, and verify the citation for the benchmark generator. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..be37e17ea --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:53:45.318993Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Code Quality and Reproducibility Review** + +The paper's LaTeX artifacts demonstrate strong documentation of the methodology (Sec. 3, App. `tab:training_stages`), but the source repository structure exhibits hygiene issues that hinder reproducibility from scratch. + +**Source Hygiene & Modularity:** +The `sections/` bundle (original source) contains broken imports that will prevent compilation. Specifically, `sections/5_experiments.tex` (line ~135) contains a bare `\input{}` command with no argument, which is a syntax error. Additionally, `sections/4_data_pipeline.tex` (line ~15) references `\input{tables/train-data}`, but the file `tables/train-data.tex` is missing from the provided bundle. While `main-llmxive.tex` (the wrapper) inlines these tables and compiles correctly, the fragmentation between the wrapper and the modular `sections/` source reduces code quality. The `sections/` structure suggests a modular design, but the missing dependencies break this contract. + +**Dependency Hygiene:** +`preamble.tex` loads redundant packages. For instance, `amsmath` (line 35) and `mathtools` (line 55) are both loaded; `mathtools` already loads `amsmath`. Similarly, `graphicx` is loaded alongside `epsfig` (not explicitly seen but often paired) and `wrapfig`, which increases compilation overhead. While not critical, cleaning these would improve build efficiency. + +**Reproducibility:** +The paper excels in documenting reproducibility details. Appendix `tab:training_stages` provides hyperparameters per stage, and `tab:asset_terms` lists licenses for all external assets (datasets, tools). This transparency is a strength. However, the actual implementation code (PyTorch/Triton) is not included in the provided artifacts, preventing verification of modularity or tests in the implementation layer. + +**Recommendation:** +1. Fix the `\input{}` error in `sections/5_experiments.tex` (line ~135). +2. Ensure all referenced table files (`tables/train-data`, `tables/main_table`) are included in the repository bundle or inlined in `main-llmxive.tex` permanently. +3. Remove redundant package imports in `preamble.tex`. + +These fixes are necessary to ensure the source artifacts are clean and reproducible. + +**Verdict:** minor_revision. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8a57f733d --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:54:55.309394Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Data Quality and Provenance Review** + +The paper demonstrates strong effort in documenting data sources and annotation pipelines, particularly in Section 4 (`sec:data_pipeline`) and Appendix `sec:appendix_asset_terms`. However, several data quality and provenance issues require clarification before acceptance. + +**1. License Consistency and Redistribution Rights** +The Abstract claims SANA-WM is an "open-source world model." However, Table `tab:asset_terms` (Appendix) indicates training data includes SpatialVID-HQ and OmniWorld, both licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. Additionally, DL3DV uses "Custom DL3DV project terms." Using Non-Commercial (NC) and ShareAlike (SA) data typically restricts the resulting model's commercial use and may require derivative works to share alike. The paper does not explicitly state the license under which the *model weights* are released. If the model is truly "open-source" (e.g., Apache-2.0 or MIT), this conflicts with the NC-SA data provenance. Please clarify the final model's license and ensure it aligns with the most restrictive training data licenses (Section 4, `sec:data_pipeline`). + +**2. Dataset Versioning and Schema** +While Table `tab:data_overview` lists clip counts, it lacks dataset version identifiers (e.g., "DL3DV-10K" vs. "DL3DV-14K"). Citing papers alone (e.g., `dl3dv`) is insufficient for reproducibility if the dataset has been updated. Additionally, the schema for the 213K clips is described via filtering thresholds (Appendix `tab:filter_thresholds`), but the proportion of data dropped due to failed pose estimation (e.g., VIPE/Pi3X failures) is not reported. Knowing the drop rate is critical for assessing selection bias and data quality. + +**3. External Link Stability** +The paper relies on external project pages (e.g., `https://nvlabs.github.io/Sana/WM/` in `main.tex`) and GitHub repositories. To prevent link rot, consider archiving these assets via Zenodo or similar services and citing the archive DOI alongside the live URL. The arXiv metadata ID `2605.15178` (May 2026) is inconsistent with current timestamps; please verify this is intentional for the benchmark context, as it affects data provenance tracking. + +**4. Missing Data Handling** +Section 4 mentions "80th-percentile inlier filtering" for scale recovery (Appendix `sec:appendix_vipe`), but does not specify how clips with missing intrinsics or poses were handled. Were they imputed, discarded, or masked? Explicitly stating the handling of missing annotations in the main text (Section 4) would improve transparency. + +Addressing these points will ensure the data provenance and licensing claims are robust and reproducible. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ca6108311 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:57:24.552069Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The figure suite is comprehensive and generally aligns with the narrative, but specific improvements in caption detail, accessibility, and color reliance are required for print and screen-reader compatibility. + +**Caption Specificity (Line 725):** Figure `fig:gdn-key-scaling` (Line 725) uses `\captionof{figure}` within a minipage alongside a table. The caption reads "Training stability ablation." This is too generic for a standalone figure. It must explicitly describe the axes (e.g., "Training Loss vs. Steps for varying key scaling factors") and the specific variants compared (e.g., "$1/\sqrt{D S}$ vs. $L_2$"). Without this, the plot is unintelligible without reading the main text. + +**Color Reliance (Line 625):** Figure `fig:vis-main` caption states: "Green borders denote \modelname." This relies entirely on color distinction. For grayscale printing or color-blind readers, this visual cue is lost. Please add text labels (e.g., "SANA-WM") directly on the figure borders or use distinct border styles (solid vs. dashed) to ensure the comparison is legible without color. + +**Accessibility (General):** No `\includegraphics` calls include `alt` text attributes (e.g., `alt text={...}`). While standard LaTeX does not enforce this, adding alt text descriptions for screen readers is recommended for modern accessibility compliance. + +**Resolution Claims (Line 45):** The teaser figure (`fig:teaser`) represents the core 720p capability claim. Ensure the embedded PDF is high-resolution enough to demonstrate sharpness at the target print scale. Blurry thumbnails contradict the high-fidelity claims made in the text. + +**Strengths:** Figure `fig:efficiency-analysis` (Line 755) has an excellent caption structure, clearly delineating subplots (a) and (b). The pipeline diagrams (`fig:pipeline_overview`, `fig:data_pipeline`) are well-referenced in the text and appear to match the described architecture. + +**Action Items:** +1. Update `fig:gdn-key-scaling` caption to describe axes and variants. +2. Modify `fig:vis-main` to rely on shape/label in addition to color. +3. Add alt text to all `\includegraphics` commands where possible. +4. Verify resolution of `fig:teaser` against the 720p claim. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..515336a0a --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:58:53.455502Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents significant technical depth but relies heavily on undefined acronyms and dense terminology that excludes non-specialist readers. To improve accessibility without sacrificing precision, several terms require expansion or simplification. + +In the **Abstract**, the term "6-DoF" is used immediately without defining "Degrees of Freedom." While standard in robotics, it should be spelled out at first use. Similarly, "NVFP4" quantization is mentioned without expansion, obscuring the specific precision format for general readers. + +The **Introduction** introduces "UCPE" (Unified Camera Positional Encoding) in the "Dual-Branch Camera Control" paragraph without defining the acronym. "VAE stride" is also used assuming prior knowledge of Variational Autoencoder temporal compression. The phrase "spatiotemporally consistent" appears multiple times; while precise, "consistent across space and time" is plainer. + +In **Section 3 (Method)**, "RoPE" (Rotary Positional Embeddings) is referenced in Eq. 3.2 without definition. "FCGS" appears in **Section 4 (Data Pipeline)** as "fit one FCGS 3D Gaussian Splatting reconstruction," but the acronym is never expanded. The **Appendix** uses "FSDP2" (Fully Sharded Data Parallel) and "LoRA" (Low-Rank Adaptation) without definition, despite these being critical implementation details. + +Additionally, phrases like "chunk-causal autoregressive generator" and "attention-sink tokens" are highly specific jargon. Consider adding brief parenthetical explanations, such as "chunk-causal (processing video in segments with causal masking)" or "attention-sink (fixed context tokens to stabilize memory)." + +Finally, "Pl\"ucker raymaps" in **Section 3.2** assumes geometric optics knowledge. A brief descriptor like "raymaps based on Pl\"ucker coordinates" would aid readability. Addressing these undefined acronyms and dense phrases will broaden the paper's reach while maintaining its technical rigor. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4aaafbff2 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:43:28.228958Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.5 +verdict: accept +--- + +The paper maintains strong internal logical consistency between its stated efficiency goals, proposed architectural mechanisms, and empirical evidence. + +**Architecture & Stability:** The premise that standard cumulative linear attention causes drift at minute scales (Sec 3.2) is logically addressed by the Gated DeltaNet (GDN) recurrence. The algebraic derivation for key scaling (Eq 4-5) correctly identifies the $O(S)$ trace risk in spatial token aggregation. This theoretical claim is directly validated by the stability ablation in Fig 5, where unscaled or $L_2$-scaled variants trigger NaNs, while the proposed $1/\sqrt{DS}$ scaling ensures convergence. The causal link between the mathematical stabilization and training success is well-supported. + +**Control Mechanism:** The claim that dual-branch conditioning is necessary for precise 6-DoF control (Sec 3.3) is supported by the ablation in Tab 3. The data shows that UCPE alone reduces RotErr but not TransErr as effectively as the combined UCPE+Pl\"ucker approach, validating the hypothesis that coarse global and fine raw-frame branches are complementary. The logic that Pl\"ucker mixing compensates for VAE temporal strides (Sec 3.3) is consistent with the reported improvements in CamMC. + +**Efficiency Claims:** The abstract claims $36\times$ higher throughput than scalable baselines. Table 1 shows SANA-WM (24.1 videos/hour) vs. LingBot-World (0.6 videos/hour), which yields $\approx 40\times$. The $36\times$ figure is a conservative estimate consistent with the provided data relative to the industrial baselines cited. The memory scaling argument (Fig 6b) logically supports the single-GPU inference claim, as the recurrent state remains $D\times D$ regardless of sequence length, unlike the all-softmax baseline which OOMs. + +**Refinement Pipeline:** The claim that the second-stage refiner improves both visual quality and pose accuracy (Tab 1) is logically consistent with the Appendix description of reference conditioning (App Sec 1), which preserves identity anchors during flow matching. While counter-intuitive that a refiner improves control, the mechanism (reference tokens excluded from loss) explains why the refiner does not drift from the pose conditioning provided in Stage 1. + +No internal contradictions or unsupported causal leaps were identified. The conclusions follow directly from the presented mechanisms and data. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4ecb03bff --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:46:28.452053Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This paper makes several efficiency and capability claims that exceed what the provided evidence justifies. + +**Hardware Claims (Abstract, Lines 14-15):** The claim that the distilled variant can generate a 60s 720p clip "on a single RTX 5090" is problematic—the RTX 5090 is not yet released (as of the paper's apparent submission date). This renders the 34s inference time claim unverifiable and potentially misleading. Either this should be removed, qualified as a projected estimate, or replaced with available hardware benchmarks (e.g., H100/4090 results). + +**Benchmark Validity (Sec. 5.2, Lines 42-45):** The 1-minute world-model benchmark contains only 80 initial scenes with self-constructed trajectories. While the authors acknowledge existing benchmarks don't target minute-scale modeling, they claim "stronger action-following accuracy than prior open-source baselines" without third-party validation or comparison to established world-model evaluation protocols. The small sample size (80 scenes × 2 splits = 160 evaluations per model) limits statistical confidence in superiority claims. + +**Pose Annotation Accuracy (Sec. 4, Lines 8-12):** The paper asserts "accurate metric-scale camera poses" from VIPE/Pi3X/MoGe-2 pipelines but provides no quantitative error analysis on the annotation pipeline itself. If pose labels have non-trivial noise, the "precise 6-DoF trajectory adherence" claim is weakened. Table 1 shows RotErr of 4.50°–8.34°, but it's unclear how much reflects model error vs. annotation error. + +**Efficiency Comparisons (Table 1, Lines 15-20):** Comparing SANA-WM's single-GPU inference to LingBot-World's 8-GPU setup while claiming "comparable visual quality" conflates hardware scale with model efficiency. The 36× throughput claim (Abstract, Line 18) compares 24.1 videos/hour (SANA-WM) to 0.6 videos/hour (LingBot-World), but LingBot-World's 8-GPU configuration isn't normalized to single-GPU performance. + +**Recommendation:** Clarify hardware claims (replace RTX 5090 with available GPUs), provide annotation error estimates, and qualify benchmark superiority claims given the self-constructed nature. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d20ba0784 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:47:52.667711Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_safety_ethics +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper addresses safety and ethics explicitly in Section 6 ("Limitations, social impact, and future work") and Appendix Sec "Broader Impact". The authors acknowledge risks regarding misinformation ("Generated videos may be mistaken for real observations") and safety-critical misuse ("over-interpreted as faithful predictions in robotics"). However, there are significant gaps in data licensing compliance and technical mitigation strategies that require attention before public release. + +1. **Data Licensing vs. Open-Source Claim:** The abstract claims an "open-source world model," yet Table 11 (Sec Appendix) lists training data sources like SpatialVID-HQ and OmniWorld under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 or custom non-commercial terms. Releasing a model trained on NC data as open-source may violate these licenses if the weights enable commercial inference. The authors must clarify whether the model weights inherit these non-commercial restrictions or if the training data was filtered to only include permissive licenses (Sec 4, Tab 11). + +2. **Misuse Mitigation:** While the authors recommend documenting provenance (Sec 6), they do not detail technical safeguards for the model weights themselves. The benchmark images use SynthID (App. Sec "Benchmark Details"), but it is unclear if the released model enforces watermarking or detection capabilities for generated outputs. Given the high fidelity (720p, minute-scale), this is a critical dual-use risk that requires specific technical countermeasures beyond policy recommendations. + +3. **Bias Acknowledgement:** The paper notes biases from public video sources (Sec 6) but lacks a specific audit of these biases in the evaluation benchmark, which relies on generated initial frames (Nano Banana Pro). + +Recommendation: Minor revision to clarify data license compliance for the model weights and specify technical provenance measures for generated outputs. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..441849c1c --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:49:34.030548Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents compelling ablation studies regarding architectural stability (Fig. 4, `fig:gdn-key-scaling`) and the necessity of the two-stage refiner (Tab. `tab:ltx23_original_refiner_ablation`). However, the central claims regarding performance superiority lack sufficient statistical evidence. Table 1 (`tab:vbench`) reports point estimates for Pose Accuracy and VBench scores without error bars or standard deviations across multiple seeds. Given the stochastic nature of diffusion models, a single run per method (implied by the table structure) is insufficient to establish statistical significance for the reported margins (e.g., RotErr 4.50 vs 10.47). + +Furthermore, the evaluation protocol introduces potential noise. Camera accuracy is measured by estimating poses from generated videos using Pi3X and aligning them to ground truth (Sec. 5.2). This compounds estimation errors: if the generator produces artifacts that confuse the pose estimator, the metric reflects estimator failure rather than generation failure. The paper does not quantify the pose estimation error on the ground-truth videos themselves to establish a baseline noise floor. + +The benchmark sample size (80 scenes, Sec. 5.2) is relatively small for robust claims about "stronger action-following accuracy" across diverse environments. Additionally, efficiency comparisons are confounded by resolution differences; baselines like LingBot-World are evaluated at 480p while SANA-WM uses 720p (Tab. 1), making the $36\times$ throughput claim partially attributable to resolution scaling rather than purely architectural efficiency. The training data sources (Tab. `tab:data_overview`) are diverse, but the potential for distributional shift between public videos and the benchmark's synthetic initial frames (Nano Banana Pro) is not analyzed. To strengthen the evidence, please report standard deviations over multiple seeds, validate pose estimation accuracy on ground-truth videos, and clarify whether efficiency metrics control for resolution or provide 480p baselines for fair comparison. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3fada9237 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:50:46.644684Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The quantitative evaluation lacks essential statistical rigor to support the performance claims made throughout the paper. Table 1 (Section 5.2) presents point estimates for Pose Accuracy (RotErr, TransErr) and VBench scores without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance testing. For instance, the claim that SANA-WM achieves "stronger action-following accuracy" (Section 5.2) is based on mean values over 80 scenes (Section 5.1), but the variance across these scenes is unreported. Given the high variability inherent in video generation metrics, statistical significance tests (e.g., paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests against baselines) are required to validate these improvements. + +Similarly, the ablation studies in Table 3 (Section 5.3) and Table 4 (Section 5.3) report single-point performance metrics (FVD, RotErr) without uncertainty bounds. The GDN key scaling analysis (Fig. 4) shows stability but lacks statistical replication across different random seeds or data splits. The benchmark size of 80 initial scenes (Section 5.1) is modest for minute-scale video evaluation; reporting confidence intervals (e.g., 95% CI) would clarify the reliability of the mean scores. Additionally, the Pose Accuracy metric relies on Pi3X pose estimation (Appendix Sec. 5.1), which has its own error distribution. The paper does not account for this measurement uncertainty in the reported Pose Acc metrics. To ensure reproducibility and robustness, please report standard deviations across the 80 benchmark scenes and include significance tests for all comparative claims in Tables 1, 3, and 4. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9c63c1ad6 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:55:39.915163Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Text Formatting Review** + +The manuscript demonstrates generally sound LaTeX structure but contains several formatting inconsistencies that should be addressed before final submission. + +**Figure Placement Inconsistency** (lines 67-73, 310, 480-486, 540-545, 620-625): Figure environments use inconsistent placement specifiers. The teaser figure uses `[H]` (forcing exact placement), while subsequent figures alternate between `[t]`, `[htbp]`, and `[th]`. For a camera-ready paper, standardize to `[htbp]` with `\floatplacement{figure}{htbp}` in preamble, or explicitly document why `[H]` is needed for the teaser. + +**Table Caption Placement** (lines 350-355, 430-435, 630-635): In `train-stability-camera-condition.tex`, the table caption uses `\captionof{table}{...}` inside a minipage, while main tables use `\caption{...}` inside `\begin{table}`. This creates inconsistent numbering behavior. Either move all ablation tables into proper `\begin{table}` environments or consistently use `\captionof`. + +**Duplicate Color Definitions** (preamble.tex lines 15, 51-55): Colors `linkc`, `eqc`, `newcitecolor`, `mygreen`, and `nvidiagreen` are defined twice with identical or conflicting values. This is redundant and may cause compilation warnings. Consolidate to a single definition block. + +**Empty Input Command** (sections/5_experiments.tex line 537): The line `\input{}` is empty and will cause a LaTeX error or warning. Remove this or provide the intended file path. + +**Figure Width Inconsistency** (lines 310, 345, 430): Figures use varying width specifications: `\textwidth`, `0.92\linewidth`, `0.98\textwidth`, `0.95\linewidth`. Standardize to `\linewidth` or `\textwidth` for consistency across the document. + +**Table Column Spacing** (tab:vbench, lines 380-450): The main results table uses `\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.65pt}` while ablation tables use `6pt` or `2.5pt`. This creates visual inconsistency between main and supplementary results. + +**Recommendation**: Apply these formatting fixes to ensure a polished, publication-ready manuscript. The content quality is unaffected, but consistent formatting improves professional presentation. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b6f8556ea --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: e5cefeb8f5a622284bf4bd8a2b4800bf995401cb7708f8533b8b272aa0c905d4 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:42:23.908418Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript presents a clear and well-structured narrative, with logical progression from motivation to methodology and evaluation. However, several stylistic and grammatical refinements would elevate the professionalism of the writing. + +In the Abstract, the phrase "natively trained" is somewhat jargon-heavy; "trained from scratch" may be clearer. The sentence "Driven by these designs" is cliché; "These designs enable" is more direct. In Section 1 (Introduction), the phrase "lie in four key components" is informal; "stem from" is preferred. The phrase "Most importantly for accessibility" is promotional; "Crucially" is more neutral. + +In Section 3 (Method), the transition between token-wise and frame-wise GDN (lines 140-150) is clear but dense. The sentence "Our video model instead scans one latent frame per step" could be smoothed to "Our model adapts this to scan one latent frame per step." In Section 4 (Data Pipeline), "re-annotates" (line 220) implies prior annotation for all sources. Since some have ground-truth poses, "annotates or re-annotates" is more precise. + +In Section 5 (Experiments), "gives the strongest action following" (line 260) is informal; "achieves the strongest accuracy" is better. "Unaffordable" (line 275) is too strong; "prohibitively expensive" fits a research context. The Appendix uses `\texorpdfstring` unnecessarily (line 450), creating visual clutter in the source. + +Finally, check tense consistency: "We introduce" in Section 1 versus "We introduced" in Section 6. While both are acceptable, consistency within the main body is recommended. Additionally, Related Work sentences (lines 10-20) are citation-heavy, reducing readability; splitting these would improve flow. + +These changes are minor but would significantly polish the final submission. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..70bd1efa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: Scientific claims depend on model evaluations that cannot be independently + verified; citation verification status unknown. +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:07:25.529188Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer +score: 0.0 +verdict: major_revision_science +--- + +# Free-form review body + +## Strengths + +- **Comprehensive benchmark design**: MemLens introduces a well-structured benchmark with 789 questions across five memory abilities (IE, MSR, TR, KU, AR) with clear subtype definitions. +- **Strong cross-modality validation**: The image-ablation study (accuracy drops below 2% without images) provides empirical evidence that the benchmark genuinely requires visual evidence. +- **Detailed methodology**: The four-stage construction pipeline is thoroughly documented with prompt templates in the appendix. +- **Quality control pipeline**: Three rounds of human review plus automated filtering demonstrates attention to data quality. +- **Reproducibility commitments**: Code and data are claimed to be publicly released with frozen version tags. +- **Solid error analysis**: The seven-label wrong-answer taxonomy and five-category modality decomposition provide nuanced failure mode analysis. + +## Concerns + +- **Unverifiable model evaluations**: The paper claims to evaluate models including "GPT-5.4", "Claude Sonnet 4.5", and "Gemini-3.1-Pro" that are not publicly available or verifiable as of current knowledge. These model names reference proprietary systems with no public API access, making independent reproduction impossible. +- **Citation verification status unknown**: The bibliography_summary input was not provided, so verification_status for all citations cannot be confirmed. This violates the `accept` requirement that every cited reference must have `verification_status: verified`. +- **Future-dated citations**: Several references have publication years of 2025-2026, which suggests either future-dated preprints or potential fabrication concerns. +- **Agent evaluation subset**: Memory agents are evaluated on only 195 questions (25% of benchmark) due to computational constraints, which may introduce sampling variance not fully addressed. +- **Model specification gaps**: Table~\ref{tab:new_model_list} contains "?" entries for parameter counts and image processing methods of proprietary models, limiting reproducibility. + +## Recommendation + +This paper requires **major_revision_science** because the core empirical claims depend on model evaluations that cannot be independently verified. The benchmark methodology itself is sound and the data construction pipeline is well-documented, but the evaluation results cannot be reproduced without access to proprietary models that may not exist or may not be publicly available. + +To address this, the authors should: +1. Replace unverifiable model evaluations with publicly available models, or provide explicit API access documentation for proprietary systems +2. Obtain and provide bibliography_summary showing `verification_status: verified` for all citations +3. Clarify the publication timeline and model availability status +4. Consider releasing a subset of evaluation runs with open-weight models to enable independent verification + +The benchmark contribution (MemLens itself) remains valuable once the evaluation methodology is made reproducible. Re-run the RESEARCH Spec Kit pipeline from `clarified` stage with these scientific verification requirements attached. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..32eafaa94 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:13:57.356320Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy +score: 0.0 +verdict: full_revision +--- + +The review identifies critical gaps in citation accuracy that undermine the verifiability of the paper's claims. While specific numerical claims in Section 4.2 (e.g., the 58.68% top LVLM accuracy at 32K) align precisely with Table `tab:per_type_full_vlm` in the Appendix, and the image-ablation results in Table `tab:mm_purity` support the abstract's assertion of visual necessity, the bibliography `ref.bib` is significantly incomplete. Over 15 unique citation keys used in the text lack corresponding entries in `ref.bib`. Notable examples include foundational model references like `seed2_0`, `seed1_8`, `openai2023gpt4`, `anthropic2024claude3`, and `team2024gemini` cited in the Introduction, as well as related work citations such as `du2025rethinkingmemoryllmbased`, `Wang_Du_Liang_Bai_Yang_Wang_Wong_Xu_2025`, and `du2024perltqapersonallongtermmemory` in Section 2. Standard academic references like `cohen1960coefficient` and `gebru2021datasheets` are also missing. These omissions render claims in the Introduction, Related Work, and Methodology unsupported by the provided documentation, violating the requirement that cited sources must support attributed claims. Additionally, the LaTeX source contains a commented-out `\iffalse` block (lines ~1000-1050) with placeholder citations marked `{[CITATION NEEDED]}`, suggesting the bibliography may be in an unfinished state. To ensure factual claims are verifiable and the scientific record is complete, all in-text citations must have valid entries in `ref.bib`. The numerical data is accurate, but the bibliographic integrity is insufficient for acceptance without full revision of the reference list. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..25738aa35 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:18:28.418306Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The provided input lacks the actual code repository (e.g., `eval_harness.py`, `scripts/`, `requirements.txt`) referenced in the paper's reproducibility statement (\url{https://github.com/xrenaf/MEMLENS}). Consequently, I cannot verify dependency hygiene, test coverage, modularity, or runtime reproducibility from scratch. My review is limited to the documentation of code quality within the LaTeX artifact. + +**Documentation Quality (Appendix \ref{app:prompts}):** +The prompt templates provided in Appendix \ref{app:prompts} are well-structured and include clear placeholders (e.g., `\{context\}`, `\{question\}`). However, they lack versioning metadata (e.g., commit hashes or prompt IDs) embedded in the text, which hinders exact reproducibility of the evaluation pipeline. The `LLM-as-Judge` prompt (Appendix \ref{app:prompts-eval}) includes robust error handling for circular reasoning but relies on a specific model (`Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct`); the paper should explicitly document how to pin this model version in the external code to prevent drift. + +**Reproducibility Statement (Section 7):** +The statement details infrastructure (vLLM v0.17--0.18, A100 nodes) and costs (\$4,500 USD). However, it does not specify environment locking (e.g., `pip freeze` or `conda env export`) in the text. While the external repo is claimed to contain this, the absence of these details in the paper itself reduces self-containment. + +**Input Artifact Limitation:** +The `main-llmxive.tex` input is truncated (`=== (main-llmxive.tex truncated to fit budget) ===`). This prevents full verification of references and the completeness of the appended code documentation. + +**Recommendations:** +1. **External Repo Verification:** Ensure the linked GitHub repository includes a `pyproject.toml` or `requirements.txt`, unit tests for the evaluation harness (specifically for the judge logic), and a `Dockerfile` or `environment.yml` for dependency isolation. +2. **Prompt Versioning:** Embed prompt IDs or git commit hashes within the paper's appendices to freeze the exact evaluation logic. +3. **Complete Artifact:** Provide the full LaTeX source in the next iteration to allow complete review of the bibliography and appendix integrity. + +Without access to the executable artifacts, code quality cannot be fully validated. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9113125d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:19:27.087251Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper demonstrates strong commitment to data quality standards, particularly in provenance tracking and privacy safeguards. Appendix \ref{app:image_release} provides detailed information on image sourcing (iCrawler), filtering (watermarks, logos), and metadata recording (source URL, timestamp, perceptual hash). The separation of licenses between author artifacts (CC-BY-4.0) and third-party images (original source licenses) is appropriate and clearly stated in the Ethics Statement. + +However, two data quality aspects require clarification to ensure long-term reproducibility and legal robustness: + +1. **Redistribution of Third-Party Images**: The paper states that 4,695 source images are "distributed alongside the dataset files" (Reproducibility Statement). While the authors note that third-party images retain their original licenses and offer a takedown contact, redistributing copyrighted web-scraped images at this scale carries legal risk. For a benchmark intended for wide adoption, it is advisable to clarify whether users are expected to download the provided image copies or re-fetch them from the source URLs using the provided metadata. Providing a script to re-fetch images based on the provenance metadata would mitigate redistribution risks and ensure the dataset remains compliant with source-site terms over time. + +2. **Metadata Schema Specification**: The paper claims per-image provenance metadata is released (Appendix \ref{app:image_release}) but does not explicitly define the schema format (e.g., JSON, CSV, Parquet) in the main text or Reproducibility Statement. Specifying the schema structure (e.g., `image_id`, `source_url`, `retrieval_timestamp`, `perceptual_hash`) in the appendix or a linked datasheet would improve usability for downstream researchers integrating this benchmark with other datasets. + +3. **Version Control Specifics**: The Ethics Statement mentions "frozen version tags," but the specific tag names or commit hashes are not included in the paper text. Including the exact dataset version tag (e.g., `v1.0.0`) in the Reproducibility Statement or a dedicated "Dataset Versioning" subsection would ensure that leaderboard results remain traceable to the exact data snapshot used. + +Addressing these points will strengthen the data quality documentation and ensure the benchmark remains sustainable and legally defensible. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9c7a62971 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:27:58.998862Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_figure_critic +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Figure Review Feedback** + +The manuscript includes a substantial set of figures (e.g., `fig:pipeline`, `fig:per_type_heatmap`, `fig:context_degradation`) that effectively visualize the benchmark construction and evaluation results. However, several critical issues regarding figure completeness, caption detail, and file consistency require minor revision to ensure print legibility and accessibility. + +**1. Missing Figure Definitions** +The `# Figures` metadata lists `figures/scaling_curves.pdf`, `figures/retrieval_decomposition_stacked_bar.pdf`, and `figures/context_delta_heatmap.pdf`, yet these are not defined in the LaTeX source. +- `context_delta_heatmap.pdf` is explicitly referenced in Appendix `\S\ref{app:wrong_answer_figures}` ("produce Figure~\ref{fig:wrong_answer_pie} and Figure~\ref{fig:context_delta_heatmap}"), but no corresponding `\begin{figure}` environment exists. This will result in a broken reference in the compiled PDF. +- `scaling_curves.pdf` and `retrieval_decomposition_stacked_bar.pdf` appear in the file list but lack `\includegraphics` commands in the provided text. If these figures support claims in the main text or appendices, they must be included or the references removed. + +**2. Caption Accessibility and Detail** +Captions must function as standalone alt text for accessibility. +- **`fig:pipeline` (Line ~400):** The caption "MemLens construction pipeline." is insufficient. It should describe the four stages (session simulation, question construction, evidence wrapping, assembly) to be informative without the image. +- **`tab:benchmark_comparison_full` (Line ~150):** This table embeds `figures/composition_donut.pdf`. The caption describes the table but does not explicitly describe the donut chart's content (e.g., "inner ring shows task distribution..."). Ensure the chart's data is summarized in the caption for readers unable to see the color-coded rings. + +**3. Legibility and Cross-Referencing** +- **`fig:visual_error` (Line ~720):** The caption references `Table~\ref{tab:modality_mapping}` for category definitions. In print, ensure this table appears on the same page or facing page to maintain legibility; otherwise, readers may lose context when flipping back. +- **`fig:per_type_heatmap` (Line ~550):** The caption notes "Missing cells indicate models that exceed their usable context budget." This is excellent clarity. Ensure the colormap is colorblind-safe (e.g., viridis or plasma) in the final PDF, as green/red distinctions can be problematic for some readers. + +**Action Items:** +1. Add `\begin{figure}` environments for `scaling_curves`, `retrieval_decomposition_stacked_bar`, and `context_delta_heatmap` or remove their references. +2. Expand `fig:pipeline` caption to detail the pipeline stages. +3. Verify colorblind safety for all heatmaps (`fig:per_type_heatmap`, `fig:type_correlation`). + +These changes will ensure the visual evidence is complete, accessible, and reproducible at print scale. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5ccb01ada --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:33:43.432893Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_jargon_police +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +This review focuses exclusively on jargon density and acronym clarity. While the manuscript is generally accessible, several technical terms and acronyms appear without definition, potentially excluding non-specialist readers. + +**Undefined Acronyms in Tables and Appendices** +In Table 1 (Section 1), the benchmark "MM-NIAH" is listed without expansion. While "Needle In A Haystack" is explained in the text, the "MM" prefix should be clarified (e.g., "Multimodal Needle In A Haystack") in the table caption or adjacent text. Similarly, Appendix Table 1 lists model architectures using "ViT" (Vision Transformer) and "MoE" (Mixture-of-Experts) without defining these standard but specialized abbreviations. Given that Appendix Table 1 is dense with model specifications, adding brief expansions would improve readability for readers less familiar with recent architectural trends. + +**Main Text Acronyms** +In Section 4.3 (Analysis), the phrase "RL/SFT fine-tuning" uses "SFT" (Supervised Fine-Tuning) without prior definition. While "RL" (Reinforcement Learning) is common, "SFT" should be spelled out at first use in the main text (Section 1 or Section 4.1) rather than assuming reader familiarity. Additionally, "LoRA" (Low-Rank Adaptation) appears in Section 1 and Appendix A.1. Although widely known in the subfield, defining it once (e.g., "LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation)") aligns with the paper's goal of comprehensiveness. + +**Appendix Technical Terms** +Appendix A.1 mentions "FAISS" and "BM25" without explanation. FAISS is a library and BM25 is a ranking function; a brief parenthetical clarification (e.g., "FAISS (Facebook AI Similarity Search)") aids reproducibility for readers outside the retrieval systems community. In Appendix A.4, "pHash" (perceptual hash) is used. Defining this term ensures the image filtering methodology is clear to a broader audience. + +**Recommendations** +1. Expand "MM-NIAH" in Table 1. +2. Define "SFT", "LoRA", "ViT", "MoE", "FAISS", "BM25", and "pHash" at their first occurrence in the text or appendices. +3. Ensure consistency: if an acronym is defined in the Appendix, consider adding it to the main text if it appears there (e.g., "LoRA"). + +These changes will reduce the cognitive load on non-specialist reviewers and ensure the benchmark's methodology is transparent to a wider audience without altering the scientific content. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8422a2c6e --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:11:44.182857Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_logical_consistency +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The logical flow from problem statement to conclusion is robust. The premise that no existing benchmark compares long-context LVLMs and memory-augmented agents on multimodal questions (Section 1) is consistently supported by the benchmark comparison in Table 1. The claim that solving MemLens requires visual evidence is logically grounded by the image-ablation study in Section 3.4 (Table 2), where accuracy collapses to <2% without images, directly validating the cross-modal dependency. + +The conclusion that LVLMs and memory agents exhibit complementary failure modes (Section 1, Section 4.2) follows from the degradation curves in Figure 4. The data shows LVLMs degrade with context length while agents remain length-stable but suffer on visually grounded tasks (IE, KU). This supports the causal claim that each architecture covers only one axis of the problem. The error analysis in Section 4.2 (Figure 5) further reinforces the conclusion that retrieval fidelity, not reasoning, is the primary bottleneck, as 90% of IE/KU errors are visual. + +However, a minor logical gap exists in the conclusion (Section 5) regarding the definition of "solving the task." The paper states "neither approach alone solves the task" based on a maximum accuracy of 58.68% (Section 4.2). While this is a reasonable qualitative threshold, the logical link would be tighter if the threshold for "solving" were explicitly defined (e.g., >80% or human-level performance) to justify why 58.68% constitutes a failure. Additionally, while the 195-question subset for agent evaluation is shown to be compositionally representative (Appendix F.1), the logical equivalence of the subset performance to the full benchmark for direct comparison with LVLMs (evaluated on 789 questions) relies on the assumption that subset variance does not affect the relative ranking. The paper provides correlation evidence ($\rho = 0.94$), but explicitly stating that the subset size is sufficient to detect the observed performance gaps (e.g., via the confidence intervals in Appendix F.1) would strengthen the logical consistency of the comparison. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..169b4dc22 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:14:28.626830Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_overreach +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +**Overreach Review: Claims Beyond Evidentiary Support** + +The paper makes several claims that exceed what its methodology and data can substantiate, requiring clarification before acceptance. + +**1. Benchmark Uniqueness Claims (Abstract, Introduction, §3)** + +The paper asserts MemLens is "the first benchmark for multimodal conversational memory" and that "no existing benchmark conducts a systematic comparison of the two [long-context LVLMs and memory-augmented agents] on questions that genuinely require visual evidence." However, Table 1 lists LoCoMo and Mem-Gallery as multimodal conversational benchmarks. The paper's distinction—that prior work "allows most questions to be answered from text alone"—is not empirically demonstrated with comparable image-ablation studies for those benchmarks. Claiming MemLens is the *only* benchmark with visual necessity requires either (a) a cross-benchmark ablation comparison or (b) toned-down language such as "among benchmarks with systematic length-controlled evaluation." + +**2. Agent vs. LVLM Comparability (§4.1, Appendix E)** + +The paper evaluates LVLMs on the full 789-question benchmark but memory agents on a 195-question stratified subset "because agent pipelines are substantially slower." While justified pragmatically, the paper then makes comparative claims about "memory agents trail LVLMs across nearly all types" (§4.2). This conflates benchmark coverage with architectural capability. The 95% confidence intervals in Appendix E show ±5–7% uncertainty at the subset level; some agent-LVLM gaps fall within these bounds. Claims like "the largest gaps on visually grounded retrieval (IE, KU)" should be qualified as "on the 195-question subset." + +**3. Text-Only Agent Adapter Conflation (§4.3, Table 2)** + +The paper states "memory agents lose to lossy multimodal compression at storage time" (§4.3). However, Table 2 shows four of seven agents (Mem0, MemOS, MemAgent-7B, Memory-T1) receive BLIP-2 captions *instead of images* at both write-time and answer-time. The visual fidelity loss here is due to the *input adapter*, not the memory architecture itself. The claim that "memory pipelines lose faithfulness to original visual evidence" (§4.3) overgeneralizes from a subset (M2A, M3C) that do receive original images. The conclusion should distinguish between "text-only agents with caption-based memory" and "multimodal agents with embedding-based memory." + +**4. Citation Integrity (Bibliography Section)** + +The bibliography contains 12 "[CITATION NEEDED]" placeholders (lines 1-12 of the bibliography section). Claims about prior work (e.g., LoCoMo, LongMemEval, MemoryBank) are cited to these unresolved entries, undermining the verifiability of the uniqueness claims in §1. This is a critical issue: benchmark novelty claims require precise citation of what prior benchmarks *do* and *do not* support. + +**5. Model Version Speculation (Appendix F)** + +The paper references models such as "GPT-5.4", "Claude Sonnet 4.5", and "Gemini-3.1-Pro" with 2025-2026 dates. These appear to be speculative or unreleased model names. Claims about their performance (e.g., "Gemini-3.1-Pro retains 51.99% accuracy at 128K") require either (a) actual system cards or (b) clarification that these are hypothetical projections. + +**6. Solution Direction Claims (Conclusion)** + +The conclusion states "Visual-evidence retention and retrieval, rather than raw scaling of either context or memory, therefore emerges as the principal bottleneck to address in the future." This prescriptive claim exceeds the benchmark's diagnostic scope. MemLens identifies *what* fails; it does not test *which* architectural changes fix it. The paper should reframe this as "suggests" or "motivates investigation into" rather than "emerges as the principal bottleneck." + +**Required Changes:** + +- Replace "first benchmark" with "first benchmark to evaluate both long-context LVLMs and memory-augmented agents under a unified length-controlled protocol" +- Qualify agent-LVLM comparisons with subset limitations and confidence intervals +- Distinguish adapter-induced visual loss from memory architecture limitations +- Resolve all "[CITATION NEEDED]" placeholders before review +- Clarify model version provenance or use placeholder notation for unreleased models +- Reframe prescriptive conclusion language as hypothesis-generating diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..20b60bec0 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:16:18.756258Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The scientific evidence supporting the benchmark's validity and evaluation findings is generally robust, though specific confounding variables require clearer attribution in the main claims. + +**Strengths:** +The cross-modality validation is excellent. The image-ablation study (Table 2, Section 3.4) provides strong causal evidence for multimodal necessity, showing accuracy collapse ($\Delta \approx -90\%$) when evidence images are removed. The evaluation protocol includes rigorous controls for judge reliability, with cross-family validation ($\kappa = 0.93$ between Qwen3-VL and GPT-5.4-mini) and human consensus checks (Appendix A.1). The dataset size (789 questions) is sufficient for benchmarking purposes. + +**Weaknesses:** +1. **Input Asymmetry as Confounder:** The comparison between LVLMs and memory agents is confounded by input representation. LVLMs process raw interleaved pixels, while text-only agents receive BLIP-2 captions, and multimodal agents often store embeddings/composites (Table 5, Appendix A.1). The main text conclusion ("memory agents... lose visual fidelity under storage-time compression") attributes the performance gap primarily to memory compression. However, the evidence equally supports that the gap arises from the *absence of raw pixels at query time* for many agents. This alternative explanation should be more prominent in the main text to avoid overclaiming about memory architecture specifically. +2. **Sample Size for Agents:** Agents are evaluated on a 195-question subset (Appendix A.2). While bootstrap confidence intervals are provided ($\pm 6\%$), this sample size limits the statistical power for fine-grained comparisons between specific agent architectures. +3. **Statistical Significance:** While effect sizes (accuracy differences) are reported, formal statistical significance testing (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA) for the LVLM vs. Agent comparisons is absent. The reliance on descriptive accuracy and confidence intervals for only the agent subset weakens the claim of "complementary failure modes" between the two groups. + +**Recommendations:** +Clarify in Section 5 (Conclusion) that the visual fidelity gap is driven by both memory compression *and* input modality asymmetry. Consider adding statistical significance markers to the main result tables or justifying why descriptive statistics suffice given the benchmark nature. Ensure the 195-question subset's representativeness is explicitly discussed in the main results section, not just the appendix. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..504f2e865 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:17:17.038294Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The evaluation framework employs LLM-as-Judge with cross-validation (Appendix \ref{app:judge_validation}), which is appropriate for the task. However, the statistical rigor of the comparative analysis requires strengthening to support the reported rankings and degradation claims. + +1. **Significance Testing:** Claims regarding model performance differences (Section 4.2, e.g., "degrades least overall (a 2.11% drop)") lack hypothesis testing. With $N=789$, accuracy differences under 5% may not be statistically significant. Please apply McNemar's test or bootstrap hypothesis testing for pairwise model comparisons to validate ranking claims. + +2. **Confidence Intervals:** Figure \ref{fig:context_degradation} reports 95% CI bands, but the caption specifies these are for "LVLM average" and "agent average". This aggregates variance across models, obscuring individual model uncertainty. Per-model confidence intervals are necessary to support specific claims about degradation rates (e.g., GLM-4.6V AR drop). + +3. **Multiple Comparisons:** The study evaluates 27 models across 5 types and 4 contexts (540+ comparisons). No correction for multiple comparisons (e.g., FDR or Bonferroni) is noted when identifying top performers or significant gaps. This increases Type I error risk. + +4. **Agent Subset Uncertainty:** Appendix \ref{app:canonical195} provides bootstrap CIs for the 195-question subset ($\pm 6%$). However, intervals for text-only agents overlap significantly (e.g., Mem0 vs. Memory-T1 at 32K). The text claims text-only pipelines are "uniformly above" multimodal ones, but overlapping CIs suggest these differences may not be robust. Clarify if pairwise differences are statistically significant. + +Reproducibility is supported by code release, but statistical scripts (e.g., for CIs and tests) should be explicitly included in the repository. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f8b004424 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:26:43.991774Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_text_formatting +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The manuscript demonstrates strong structural organization, but several LaTeX hygiene issues will prevent successful compilation or cause unexpected behavior in the final PDF. + +First, the preamble lacks the `tabularray` package required for the `\begin{longtblr}` environment used in the Appendix (Line 605). While `tabularx` is loaded, `longtblr` is a distinct command from the `tabularray` bundle. Adding `\usepackage{tabularray}` is necessary to compile the topic ontology table. Second, the Acknowledgments section uses `\begin{ack}` (Line 453), but the preamble only defines a command `\providecommand{\acknowledgments}{...}` (Line 26). Unless the `llmxive` class explicitly defines the `ack` environment, this will raise an "undefined environment" error. Aligning the environment usage with the class definition (e.g., using `\acknowledgments` or defining the environment) is required. + +Third, color definitions are redundant. `\definecolor{softred}` is declared in the preamble (Line 38) and again in the Introduction (Line 104). While `xcolor` tolerates redefinition, it is cleaner to define once globally. Fourth, standard LaTeX parameters `\topfraction` and `\textfraction` are redefined as macros via `\providecommand` (Lines 34–35). This can shadow internal float registers; using `\renewcommand` or setting these values directly in the preamble is safer for float placement stability. + +Finally, several citation keys referenced in the text (e.g., `seed2_0` on Line 53, `zhang2024rtuning` on Line 154) do not appear in the provided `ref.bib` snippet. Ensure all `\cite` keys exist in the bibliography file to avoid "undefined citation" warnings. The cross-reference labels (e.g., `\label{tab:benchmark_comparison_full}` on Line 135 matched by `\ref` on Line 66) are consistently formatted and correctly paired. Addressing the package and environment issues will resolve compilation failures. diff --git a/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4678e92a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +artifact_hash: d50a4f0b1e568c7504bc9f36b9def267fba709bab11751ed7e3ec317ba0682a2 +artifact_path: projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/metadata.json +backend: dartmouth +feedback: '' +github_authenticated: false +model_name: qwen.qwen3.5-122b +prompt_version: 1.0.0 +reviewed_at: '2026-05-17T14:10:12.442901Z' +reviewer_kind: llm +reviewer_name: paper_reviewer_writing_quality +score: 0.0 +verdict: minor_revision +--- + +The paper presents a clear and well-structured narrative, with high overall readability suitable for a top-tier venue. The abstract and introduction effectively motivate the work, and the methodology is described with sufficient precision. However, there are several minor grammatical inconsistencies and phrasing choices that detract from the polish of the writing. + +**Specific Issues:** + +1. **Grammar (Line 351, Section 3.3):** In the "Quality Control" subsection, the sentence "for AR questions... this round instead confirms that the removed facts was answer-critical" contains a subject-verb agreement error. "Facts" is plural, so it should be "were," or "fact" (singular) should be used. +2. **Grammar (Line 435, Section 4.3):** In the "Analysis" subsection, the phrase "on the same Qwen3-VL-8B backbone that score 81.82%" should be corrected to "scores" to agree with the singular "backbone." +3. **Phrasing (Line 317, Section 3.2):** The colon usage in "without stressing them: To embed the fact..." is slightly informal. Consider rephrasing to "by embedding the fact indirectly; for instance..." +4. **Phrasing (Line 297, Section 3.2):** The phrase "closing the text-only shortcut" is acceptable but "preventing the text-only shortcut" is more standard academic phrasing. +5. **Phrasing (Lines 396, 414, 447):** The use of "inverts" and "inverted profile" to describe performance shifts is slightly colloquial. "Reverses" or "exhibits a contrasting profile" would be more precise. +6. **Phrasing (Line 366, Section 3.4):** "Converge on near-identical collapses" is vivid but "collapse" is a strong metaphor for accuracy drops. "Performance drops" or "accuracy declines" might be more neutral. + +**Recommendation:** +Address the subject-verb agreement errors (Lines 351, 435) as they are clear mistakes. Refine the phrasing in the "Analysis" and "Data Curation" sections to align with standard academic conventions. These changes will elevate the writing quality to match the technical contribution. diff --git a/src/llmxive/agents/paper_reviewer.py b/src/llmxive/agents/paper_reviewer.py index 35f887059..a37d747a9 100644 --- a/src/llmxive/agents/paper_reviewer.py +++ b/src/llmxive/agents/paper_reviewer.py @@ -40,23 +40,95 @@ def _read_optional(path: Path) -> str: return path.read_text(encoding="utf-8") if path.exists() else "" -def _concat_tex(source_dir: Path, *, max_chars: int = 60000) -> str: +def _concat_tex(source_dir: Path, *, max_chars: int = 180_000) -> str: + """Concatenate .tex files for the reviewer prompt. + + Ordering matters: arXiv tarballs commonly have a tiny `extra_pkgs.tex` + that sorts alphabetically BEFORE the multi-hundred-KB `main.tex`. With + a small budget that ordering meant the reviewer saw only package + declarations — never the actual paper body. We now: + 1. Promote the entry-point file (`\\documentclass`) to the front, + and if needed include it truncated to fit the budget. + 2. Then include other files until the budget is exhausted. + + The default budget (~180KB ≈ 45K tokens) leaves headroom in a 128K + context window for the system prompt, figure list, bibliography, + prior reviews, and the response. + """ if not source_dir.is_dir(): return "" + all_tex = sorted(source_dir.rglob("*.tex")) + if not all_tex: + return "" + + # Locate the entry-point file (contains \documentclass). Skim only + # the head of each file to avoid loading every tex twice. + primary: Path | None = None + for tex in all_tex: + try: + head = tex.read_text(encoding="utf-8", errors="ignore")[:4000] + except OSError: + continue + if "\\documentclass" in head: + primary = tex + break + + ordering = [primary] + [t for t in all_tex if t != primary] if primary else list(all_tex) + chunks: list[str] = [] total = 0 - for tex in sorted(source_dir.rglob("*.tex")): + included = 0 + for tex in ordering: rel = tex.relative_to(source_dir).as_posix() body = tex.read_text(encoding="utf-8", errors="ignore") chunk = f"=== {rel} ===\n{body}\n" if total + len(chunk) > max_chars: - chunks.append(f"=== (truncated; remaining files: {len(list(source_dir.rglob('*.tex'))) - len(chunks)}) ===\n") + remaining_budget = max(max_chars - total - 200, 0) + if remaining_budget > 0 and included == 0: + # Always include at least the primary file, even if it + # needs to be cut. A truncated entry-point is far more + # useful than only seeing package declarations. + chunks.append(chunk[:remaining_budget] + + f"\n=== ({rel} truncated to fit budget) ===\n") + total += remaining_budget + included += 1 + files_omitted = len(ordering) - included + chunks.append( + f"=== ({files_omitted} additional .tex file(s) omitted to fit budget) ===\n" + ) break chunks.append(chunk) total += len(chunk) + included += 1 return "\n".join(chunks) +def _summarize_bibfile(source_dir: Path, *, max_chars: int = 30_000) -> str: + """For arXiv-intake papers, state/citations/.yaml is empty. + Surface ref.bib (or any .bib) so the reviewer can see what's cited. + """ + if not source_dir.is_dir(): + return "" + bibs = sorted(source_dir.rglob("*.bib")) + if not bibs: + return "" + parts: list[str] = [] + total = 0 + for bib in bibs: + rel = bib.relative_to(source_dir).as_posix() + body = bib.read_text(encoding="utf-8", errors="ignore") + head = f"=== {rel} ===\n" + if total + len(head) + len(body) > max_chars: + remaining = max(max_chars - total - len(head) - 100, 0) + if remaining > 0: + parts.append(head + body[:remaining] + "\n=== (truncated) ===\n") + total += len(head) + remaining + break + parts.append(head + body + "\n") + total += len(head) + len(body) + return "\n".join(parts) + + def _summarize_figures(fig_dir: Path) -> str: if not fig_dir.is_dir(): return "(no figures directory)" @@ -177,7 +249,12 @@ def build_messages(self, ctx: AgentContext) -> list[ChatMessage]: ] bib_summary = "\n".join(bib_lines) else: - bib_summary = "(no citations recorded)" + # arXiv-intake fallback: state/citations is never populated for + # papers ingested verbatim, so surface the raw .bib file(s) + # from paper/source/ — the reviewer can at least see what's + # being cited and judge whether the reference set is sensible. + bib_fallback = _summarize_bibfile(paper_dir / "source") + bib_summary = bib_fallback or "(no citations recorded)" prior = reviews_store.list_for(ctx.project_id, stage="paper", repo_root=repo) prior_block = ( @@ -262,6 +339,19 @@ def handle_response(self, ctx: AgentContext, response: ChatResponse) -> list[str front["prompt_version"] = self.entry.prompt_version front["reviewed_at"] = datetime.now(timezone.utc).isoformat() + # Normalize score: the LLM occasionally picks a verdict but + # forgets the verdict↔score binding (e.g., verdict=accept with + # score=0.0 or score=1.0). The score is purely derived from the + # verdict, so we recompute it deterministically. This avoids + # losing a substantive review to a numeric-formatting slip. + verdict = front.get("verdict") + if verdict == "accept": + front["score"] = 0.5 + elif verdict in {"reject", "minor_revision", "full_revision", + "major_revision_writing", "major_revision_science", + "fundamental_flaws"}: + front["score"] = 0.0 + # Compute artifact_hash + artifact_path. Two paths: # (a) Home-grown paper pipeline: tasks.md under paper/specs/-/ # (b) arXiv-intake paper: paper/metadata.json (no feature_dir) diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.history.jsonl index 980e4345d..45ba2f98a 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-14T04:19:51.360791+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T15:07:33.303057+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.yaml index 78e74e0c8..636642177 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:50.872340Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: 309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ revision_round: 0 speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: Qwen-Image-VAE-2.0 Technical Report -updated_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:51.359395Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T15:07:33.302301Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.history.jsonl index 97f13e402..b157bc613 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-14T04:19:54.297740+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T15:12:45.287182+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.yaml index 86ddbc91e..fce3e1682 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:52.922808Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: 144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681 last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: 'Edit-Compass & EditReward-Compass: A Unified Benchmark for Image Editing and Reward Modeling' -updated_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:54.296306Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T15:12:45.286423Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.history.jsonl index 5ac6404f7..36a95ccef 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-14T04:19:56.075964+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T15:06:57.386539+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.yaml index 7452c1de9..85af2dd3b 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:55.772254Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412 last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ revision_round: 0 speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: 'MinT: Managed Infrastructure for Training and Serving Millions of LLMs' -updated_at: '2026-05-14T04:19:56.074542Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T15:06:57.385623Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.history.jsonl index c04c5c529..1fb89a36b 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.history.jsonl @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-14T04:20:01.204568+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} -{"at": "2026-05-16T12:48:21.746261+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "acaa8f53-3916-4dcc-9022-d22aab39fe36", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T15:12:46.236762+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.yaml index 9fc0209d9..56c686227 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.yaml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ failed_stage: null field: biology human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ -last_run_id: acaa8f53-3916-4dcc-9022-d22aab39fe36 +last_run_id: 09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0 last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: Identifying stimulus-driven neural activity patterns in multi-patient intracranial recordings -updated_at: '2026-05-16T12:48:21.744649Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T15:12:46.235843Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.history.jsonl index de56597d2..3d32772e5 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-15T15:14:19.697794+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T15:09:12.306255+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.yaml index 10daf89f9..f3de1918d 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-15T15:14:08.852973Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144 last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ revision_round: 0 speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: Leveraging Verifier-Based Reinforcement Learning in Image Editing -updated_at: '2026-05-15T15:14:19.696175Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T15:09:12.305469Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.history.jsonl index e3f6e4c8e..9733aad56 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-15T15:14:37.464657+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T14:54:28.496789+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.yaml index e5aee49ce..5bb191d2d 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-15T15:14:34.745826Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: 52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ revision_round: 0 speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: Co-Evolving Policy Distillation -updated_at: '2026-05-15T15:14:37.463083Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T14:54:28.496117Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.history.jsonl index ca5a98932..ba3d2eb48 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-16T08:36:33.907004+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T14:58:53.492719+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.yaml index 1f1977e03..0c5aea529 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-16T08:36:33.385690Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: 27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654 last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: 'SANA-WM: Efficient Minute-Scale World Modeling with Hybrid Linear Diffusion Transformer' -updated_at: '2026-05-16T08:36:33.905522Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T14:58:53.491975Z' diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.history.jsonl b/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.history.jsonl index d08fe7d76..b599fd8b6 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.history.jsonl +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.history.jsonl @@ -1 +1,2 @@ {"at": "2026-05-16T08:36:35.948488+00:00", "from_stage": "brainstormed", "last_run_id": null, "to_stage": "paper_review"} +{"at": "2026-05-17T14:33:43.473014+00:00", "from_stage": "paper_review", "last_run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "to_stage": "paper_minor_revision"} diff --git a/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.yaml b/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.yaml index 4257d5ea1..1d63d6d55 100644 --- a/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.yaml +++ b/state/projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.yaml @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@ artifact_hashes: {} assigned_agent: null created_at: '2026-05-16T08:36:35.701330Z' -current_stage: paper_review +current_stage: paper_minor_revision failed_stage: null field: computer science human_escalation_reason: null id: PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906 -last_run_id: null +last_run_id: 6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e last_run_status: null points_paper: {} points_research: {} @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ speckit_paper_dir: null speckit_research_dir: null title: 'MemLens: Benchmarking Multimodal Long-Term Memory in Large Vision-Language Models' -updated_at: '2026-05-16T21:50:32.878116Z' +updated_at: '2026-05-17T14:33:43.472050Z' diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..754aa9622 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:39:03.502373Z", "entry_id": "73e4426f-a9b0-4440-aa8c-5da08db11e9b", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:21.442271Z", "task_id": "ea5c81cd-b2bf-4cfb-9bb2-64722ecb49e7"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:59.078961Z", "entry_id": "1b2f36f9-69bc-410c-903b-1d65f343c21b", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:39:03.528715Z", "task_id": "715317e2-d3d6-4ce6-ad28-bfa488557370"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:08.578799Z", "entry_id": "4c090cfc-364c-4212-96d5-84cc307b2ea9", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:59.107496Z", "task_id": "b0caf80c-4976-433b-9725-da0bb5a5eb73"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:06.392534Z", "entry_id": "20cba73d-8297-4c65-89e9-0ce7bc1ceea2", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:08.605990Z", "task_id": "350bc176-898d-4716-a4b0-af51ea16d030"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:47.074608Z", "entry_id": "8bf54786-fdf2-4b6a-a2ab-02ce81d36bc8", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:06.423546Z", "task_id": "7f0589b4-1500-4b55-a3d2-804a7a4d0b88"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:46.522817Z", "entry_id": "2190a1ad-a27c-4a7a-8e7f-7e3481524a0e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:47.103913Z", "task_id": "22dd4f3d-63a3-4e73-b7e8-8f4b6fc96eac"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:09.541307Z", "entry_id": "3a8af692-316f-4bea-9dc2-663ba8b9b218", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:46.548474Z", "task_id": "5f39736a-6f89-4d42-abb4-4393474c1ad1"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:54.326991Z", "entry_id": "667cd577-d452-481c-acb3-b4cc37e72280", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:09.589254Z", "task_id": "98a7e377-d09b-4a0b-9126-1c4b5aa7bc41"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:33.199012Z", "entry_id": "373dfd5c-3030-44c4-9c2c-9d1079f44132", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:54.359757Z", "task_id": "8ae4cf56-3331-4795-99f7-0bfe2101e024"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:14.414891Z", "entry_id": "262c6158-e9fc-4b7f-8735-5d2b7648d89c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:33.225844Z", "task_id": "8ddfa176-abee-4ad7-9ed6-69b2eb131eae"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:59:31.913468Z", "entry_id": "f2bc4650-61dc-4cfc-b550-22da6826b198", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:14.446655Z", "task_id": "b8d398fa-02ea-4cdb-81e9-47a8ac7efd57"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:01:44.166753Z", "entry_id": "5a1dabe4-16cb-4a07-a701-b3942f115044", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:59:31.956587Z", "task_id": "db178c57-36a2-4b8e-be56-54e5a63a4aaf"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:12:46.183175Z", "entry_id": "64627cb6-609a-4946-9c11-f741879a814f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/idea/identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-568-identifying-stimulus-driven-neural-activ", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "09c40f89-2245-4b03-be9c-f4fb0a15f1d0", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:01:44.193153Z", "task_id": "f69c537b-0771-49ee-af3e-a1189710b511"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d15b71be4 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:37:06.027719Z", "entry_id": "c063f6c5-a5c1-4975-a643-ba3b2eae65bd", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:35:14.860629Z", "task_id": "14ec8a03-0a23-462d-aa2d-d3a5f2cdc54e"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:32.942992Z", "entry_id": "626719d2-62a9-45f9-8cb1-5cf36c902f5e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:37:06.053337Z", "task_id": "19503d38-7c5b-49c5-b61e-3e68c736843a"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:13.464270Z", "entry_id": "d9b2a0b2-ceaa-459a-afbe-ea010f9a506e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:32.973013Z", "task_id": "5f27ec8d-d94e-4352-a7bc-d8266cbec436"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:55.265960Z", "entry_id": "ebb8afd8-5fc3-4fde-a805-226eaddaf11a", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:13.489864Z", "task_id": "0515f1b9-9000-4809-8b2c-b2d1ae5e9803"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:20.967180Z", "entry_id": "96cfbb36-d7a1-4175-a717-8c2aadfb3f3d", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:55.292231Z", "task_id": "7a04f0fb-e9a3-468a-a3ed-f48679e117cd"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:57.360950Z", "entry_id": "f93a64d5-44d9-49f2-ad0c-44afca88fd8a", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:20.994675Z", "task_id": "0db662c5-d31a-4822-809c-b0a4ce5ca547"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:51.498246Z", "entry_id": "cd242cee-9868-4aa2-8671-dd1900d62d97", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:57.387888Z", "task_id": "b29b5764-9be1-4220-8f56-81a25851863c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:21.129475Z", "entry_id": "92084879-1d26-4a1c-bcc0-21e298e52115", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:51.548155Z", "task_id": "82f39c50-7b6c-41c0-ae48-f1a6f98b7694"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:54.552076Z", "entry_id": "e1375066-d123-43d4-a345-c7205da15f76", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:21.156659Z", "task_id": "8be6eb32-8aec-473c-9d69-980cc0dd47f1"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:37.273566Z", "entry_id": "dcd36b46-25ec-411f-832d-a73468c1d5b3", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:54.578877Z", "task_id": "76d8f6ba-237e-41b5-9f1a-7f357cada7e9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:10:15.001991Z", "entry_id": "d88bc423-efe4-46f4-8fdc-f18143f5253f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "openai.gpt-oss-120b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:37.300613Z", "task_id": "45a85e67-b858-40cb-b0f4-57a98be1f473"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:11:18.263700Z", "entry_id": "c4621ad3-edfb-4fea-9304-ffcfb4570942", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:10:15.028507Z", "task_id": "578bb4b1-4c4c-44a2-a17a-b0c6167084a9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:12:45.252585Z", "entry_id": "03d0347a-0d89-477d-9df0-68835cb3a983", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/idea/edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-565-edit-compass-editreward-compass-a-unifie", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "144c9afc-bd0f-452b-992f-0d067c55a681", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:11:18.293620Z", "task_id": "7601d346-e8b3-467a-abd1-91984b2d22f0"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..38ddc6c39 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:11.627430Z", "entry_id": "08a37034-a34d-4294-998b-c4d40f4aee47", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:23.052139Z", "task_id": "e381e8c7-7ccc-4d33-bd1a-21b7f48d0412"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:23.910815Z", "entry_id": "39a06f52-1bc5-466a-8757-f24a564294d5", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:11.652594Z", "task_id": "5c79ff53-32c0-4600-a334-7b799d88e61e"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:28.229908Z", "entry_id": "d0310916-0fab-4e23-8b55-b02ec208c2d6", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:23.938499Z", "task_id": "96388aa5-f904-471a-aac5-a3c8f5e4f5a8"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:45:55.142828Z", "entry_id": "5f0835d3-11cd-41a9-ba05-cc3afcb5bbd6", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:28.255817Z", "task_id": "ee7b1533-6432-455f-86f0-6a1167f7b678"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:28.454085Z", "entry_id": "b7bf7285-7dc5-4f03-88ac-4af6a301260b", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:45:55.182495Z", "task_id": "8c7e87cc-10cf-474f-8796-eb20b16738f5"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:52.670300Z", "entry_id": "6346aeb7-78b8-46f3-813f-0bf5fdacaefe", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:28.481315Z", "task_id": "f2b22f3b-312f-4b31-86ce-05d103d1f394"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:34.034242Z", "entry_id": "5229d806-37f1-46dc-a26d-39fa7f7f308f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:52.699132Z", "task_id": "cdc0e18b-6fea-4d4d-91df-c84ec4fcee32"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:46.646844Z", "entry_id": "a0e89a67-16ff-4da2-968a-729044ba14f0", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:34.104268Z", "task_id": "ff1a61e2-6ea2-440f-8d36-f4b1df0b5fcb"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:53:45.321201Z", "entry_id": "03a34b60-4f7f-4e46-9d9a-5edd14c24873", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:46.673061Z", "task_id": "8e7489a3-5737-4dbe-8711-273fc12e5612"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:55.311718Z", "entry_id": "efb512ed-887d-4dcb-baf9-6c4937ada80f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:53:45.347225Z", "task_id": "642a5ccf-2cc0-4064-8142-efc836618b8e"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:55:39.917867Z", "entry_id": "527c63b0-8730-4cc8-9444-aee412a2e317", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:55.341329Z", "task_id": "6fe5046c-b212-4a2b-9c9e-23c2e04d2c77"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:57:24.554087Z", "entry_id": "6451d99b-89d7-4c4f-9a76-04c8ac10a7d2", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:55:39.945093Z", "task_id": "e47ffaa9-af28-40c3-b644-3532da9947a5"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:58:53.458003Z", "entry_id": "f85438e9-baac-4dc7-9ea6-61bfe88ded37", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/idea/sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-576-sana-wm-efficient-minute-scale-world-mod", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "27849d33-3575-4cf2-85f7-9c2379715654", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:57:24.582855Z", "task_id": "656cf38f-9ea8-473d-8927-ece30cb40ce6"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ac477608b --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:36:52.397227Z", "entry_id": "8af96017-062b-4c11-a2bf-d67a799c253f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:35:16.789989Z", "task_id": "a013bebc-d6a1-4b53-a0bb-1e45021ec13c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:12.079188Z", "entry_id": "5de990e4-6120-4f08-91ff-9d1b6b4567c4", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:36:52.422652Z", "task_id": "a9dd42e9-a3f1-4ad9-9c3e-407353279124"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:31.440055Z", "entry_id": "e6e89fcd-b35e-4011-9d52-42e336360c4a", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:12.109255Z", "task_id": "b2596d15-ecb1-4e96-bda9-4bfa623d1ff9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:33.702675Z", "entry_id": "2e2d6238-e23c-42b8-b5b9-aae7be8b0932", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:31.467570Z", "task_id": "18780d63-b2c6-4476-b686-194397e10e27"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:15.120394Z", "entry_id": "b352f5ec-b93d-47ac-bd40-7939b3fd92dd", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:33.727498Z", "task_id": "c1376d7b-0a3b-4a86-9f36-9645b1e0a0ca"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:50.159696Z", "entry_id": "d18f5d32-d853-4256-b5ac-c36ae56de158", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:15.150240Z", "task_id": "a117a2b3-01a2-4f57-a760-b6921d884358"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:17.575029Z", "entry_id": "0c2f7267-edcf-400f-8128-bc3f7344d8f1", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:50.187407Z", "task_id": "71032fba-0746-4247-af6f-7f96e7475d58"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:48.866931Z", "entry_id": "097e65b1-c984-428c-b2ac-cc74c133b61f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:17.621672Z", "task_id": "dfcefcc8-0f8f-4dd4-a13c-ef2749af2b3c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:24.960998Z", "entry_id": "86cbf0f1-3170-40a2-8707-1a0257f6e4a7", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:47:48.896653Z", "task_id": "76ec4c39-491a-42f8-9e09-13282e4d162d"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:14.855914Z", "entry_id": "d76a3966-1851-447f-a5e3-793daf7de1f6", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:24.989671Z", "task_id": "4d0545bb-c0ad-4393-8779-ab961a79bbf6"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:04:36.109531Z", "entry_id": "21717934-b622-4ab5-a6d6-446569ca1e83", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:50:14.882785Z", "task_id": "8e57dc13-1ad6-44ec-b0a6-eb45c39052bf"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:18.571991Z", "entry_id": "c82b82cc-edc9-4609-a1c6-a634e8ab9e6e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:04:36.152812Z", "task_id": "4f9e3ba0-dc05-4e2d-a44d-48e7a9e0cf5e"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:07:33.267479Z", "entry_id": "5eaa545f-f372-46e2-b1cb-041c9e97a1cf", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/idea/qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-564-qwen-image-vae-2-0-technical-report", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "309c18ff-e16e-4824-858a-607fb247f6ee", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:18.613001Z", "task_id": "ce729ce5-ef24-4912-96bc-0b649e1eabc5"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..014267845 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:36:36.669740Z", "entry_id": "830d67bd-b035-4421-87ff-4ab3b8cb9d94", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:35:12.807550Z", "task_id": "1a2d8acc-c517-4c69-a63f-ccdc0c11b256"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:37:18.435235Z", "entry_id": "b709e0c3-f0a6-4d3c-a5e5-17b53954fba7", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:36:36.696050Z", "task_id": "d154ec71-ca74-4e2d-9428-fe0437aea49b"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:39:09.926196Z", "entry_id": "bf8e1c61-d393-402c-9767-ca82173a00c2", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:37:18.462120Z", "task_id": "8f2dc2b1-87ec-4fe4-a1fe-f2927c9cd12d"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:43.372266Z", "entry_id": "fbb4d45e-694e-4e5a-b516-e27d5f9fc88b", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:39:09.957603Z", "task_id": "b752655c-573d-4859-944a-90e6ad680ee0"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:33.855312Z", "entry_id": "fd5db02c-397e-46c5-b812-8c9f4ecb3b76", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:43.399874Z", "task_id": "7c4ea821-1e69-4e4b-85d5-6b1e85ecdc15"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:00.734481Z", "entry_id": "1d8990eb-715d-49e9-b9a9-8456d066ac26", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:43:33.885812Z", "task_id": "1d781e63-e1ff-474c-a7cc-1b5461066118"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:45:38.914542Z", "entry_id": "dfc86e8d-8484-425a-bf50-779947ffac12", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:00.761408Z", "task_id": "5060bc6a-d7a7-428d-a3f0-d706d9b5b65b"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:38.683048Z", "entry_id": "a3d894ec-c51a-4f5d-9a34-e40e1ead15a2", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:45:38.963690Z", "task_id": "26c61413-a569-4a87-b39c-90138f465530"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:11.353331Z", "entry_id": "51482c4b-b7e4-42b8-af8b-66dbd07e7a1c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:46:38.709697Z", "task_id": "b47f0303-8c2c-4f5c-8689-d6a4fec82bc9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:29.283428Z", "entry_id": "669f394d-e955-404b-9e18-6fa35dd481eb", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:48:11.379250Z", "task_id": "9b4e0be4-704a-485e-b45a-4d1daa75d103"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:54.557726Z", "entry_id": "65387473-904e-458e-8100-0fc0ddd1c5dc", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:29.315502Z", "task_id": "1191e991-5e4b-40c4-b04d-22596215d2ba"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:42.548264Z", "entry_id": "8bacbdab-f28c-4313-a69b-bcb5c9b4bf7c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:54.598003Z", "task_id": "b088a85e-a066-4b75-a931-34696acf5204"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:28.458854Z", "entry_id": "61894a38-3865-4982-b88b-ca437f8d1911", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/idea/co-evolving-policy-distillation.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-571-co-evolving-policy-distillation", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "52271de9-1a3d-4d45-a976-9e0eb248c59b", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:42.577383Z", "task_id": "35cf42c6-4f42-45fd-8369-f3419a3df4b7"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7dd20113c --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:54:52.224721Z", "entry_id": "23408010-66e7-4df5-86b9-92216bf51a26", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:54:30.013345Z", "task_id": "5070506f-fdc2-4623-90b7-33942e8344be"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:55:11.881795Z", "entry_id": "5e66201f-fa22-4979-ae6f-38f59f9b58bc", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:54:52.252861Z", "task_id": "c7bc40fd-48fc-4ea5-95b7-8c19a74d3a71"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:55:27.546214Z", "entry_id": "f2454b81-3898-4222-ad5f-032f79b57b1f", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:55:11.910956Z", "task_id": "9c2c52f8-3c9e-4180-8fd3-046fd9469d80"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:56:21.855139Z", "entry_id": "fdca1607-a360-45e5-a00e-3089ff08d637", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:55:27.572638Z", "task_id": "0b170921-feb4-45a7-b91d-ecd750454806"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:17.898262Z", "entry_id": "a7626326-bf3a-4c59-b24f-ba5a0e52f86e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:56:21.887147Z", "task_id": "02fcc158-57f2-4e19-8ad3-f02889156810"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:30.610297Z", "entry_id": "fc11e7fb-cb0a-42d1-8fd9-098ef884f207", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:17.928223Z", "task_id": "85aa5e3b-386e-4fc5-b9ed-62220090a23b"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:45.845275Z", "entry_id": "fd2c992c-8915-49e5-b6da-6d8515393df9", "failure_reason": "RuntimeError: paper_reviewer: response missing YAML frontmatter", "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "failed", "outputs": [], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:30.638306Z", "task_id": "f4c7fe82-f1b6-4dc1-8748-3e90088dfcbc"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:58:57.874569Z", "entry_id": "c1474016-890b-4ae3-bc8c-3e1a7b836bd7", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:57:45.895335Z", "task_id": "1b6296a9-ab2d-4f9e-b356-28ecc86c00cc"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T13:59:21.171712Z", "entry_id": "7212c368-a669-47a3-9e82-5bc5341317c1", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:58:57.904343Z", "task_id": "3f6e6d03-5a07-44a1-82aa-fdec45bcb68f"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:16.684930Z", "entry_id": "9c90d950-dfb2-4ceb-b428-e23135c3912d", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T13:59:21.202980Z", "task_id": "e4de9351-af7d-44a9-a8fc-1ce129e3d97c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:35.590601Z", "entry_id": "e0f26f6c-4088-482d-813e-c5096d43ede6", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:16.712767Z", "task_id": "24f20eb0-970e-4d99-973d-e01ed3ff5dfe"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:59.858745Z", "entry_id": "2583ffc5-29f5-4fd0-ae19-353864633af1", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:35.619825Z", "task_id": "b3ce0a4f-c1e7-485c-97c4-ee875d12be1c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:01:44.967076Z", "entry_id": "a2dc1e47-51e7-4ea6-b66b-f23198741c21", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "57ec91ba-767b-4a81-928e-a28bc8a59931", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:00:59.885620Z", "task_id": "10cc4826-2a4a-4ce2-85e1-e59ae51b4861"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4b57b8196 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:07:25.532687Z", "entry_id": "716536e9-7aaf-42f3-bfd9-b680de71b942", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:06:34.474822Z", "task_id": "7772a98d-d857-4dbc-a198-1420f2f2d779"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:10:12.445757Z", "entry_id": "0353ad67-2e6d-4098-a5cb-bbc9b22c5715", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:07:25.558342Z", "task_id": "09fe2941-d1a8-482f-b493-ecfd3d33bb45"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:11:44.185549Z", "entry_id": "cb539d4b-7df0-404f-9150-84caa499d5ac", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:10:12.470406Z", "task_id": "500a8ca4-b462-4bbc-a8f1-55d226c91efa"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:13:57.358567Z", "entry_id": "a943c42a-00a8-4358-b61e-9a04759395f4", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:11:44.213413Z", "task_id": "b2e0eaee-b6fa-451a-b20a-e0295109c8f2"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:14:28.629687Z", "entry_id": "dbac889c-824f-4f5a-b689-e3ec83800b63", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:13:57.385841Z", "task_id": "b8fafafb-e3c3-4611-8c7d-12b555931dfb"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:15:27.704487Z", "entry_id": "61682dbd-709c-4199-820c-6ed190c3f250", "failure_reason": "ValidationError: 1 validation error for ReviewRecord\n Value error, LLM accept must score 0.5 [type=value_error, input_value={'reviewer_name': 'paper_...T14:15:27.703726+00:00'}, input_type=dict]\n For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.13/v/value_error", "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "failed", "outputs": [], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:14:28.658358Z", "task_id": "65e229b2-fd1f-4504-a1ce-f4de36cdd62d"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:16:18.759123Z", "entry_id": "5a339ff2-a4f2-4ec3-a619-3c05b604baef", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:15:27.734846Z", "task_id": "36a7b04b-856b-411a-b6d5-a261c1d26932"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:17:17.040409Z", "entry_id": "6055bbf6-94fd-4324-b338-b7f8c55f412c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:16:18.804762Z", "task_id": "4e1e569d-5423-41e2-9409-e0235cb1e3ea"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:18:28.421024Z", "entry_id": "0fb9a445-992c-4003-9ccc-571c59dfbf37", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:17:17.068198Z", "task_id": "1b055d51-5426-4bab-b19b-de5ec3a6ab26"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:19:27.089380Z", "entry_id": "31599c2f-56b4-44ba-90f7-d8cde35f8da4", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:18:28.446080Z", "task_id": "3c8d2df0-d645-4b0a-a162-c79f355c0244"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:26:43.994154Z", "entry_id": "8e179f11-671c-47f2-86a5-433eeaecacb4", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:19:27.117170Z", "task_id": "011e3555-bcfb-4573-9a0a-010602fd7220"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:27:59.000934Z", "entry_id": "7b28fb28-e898-4360-a278-2f4b56e77e04", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:26:44.022957Z", "task_id": "67e30551-63b8-4f9c-b420-99cd5d4c3d7c"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:33:43.435811Z", "entry_id": "c25ad1f9-6b34-4452-ac0d-1be6e79e281e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/idea/https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "6f148193-79af-464a-9c9c-d971a79c7e6e", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:27:59.028870Z", "task_id": "16bd269c-2d2d-4b20-9d16-20f9efc0b13d"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b9dfadb34 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:50.177262Z", "entry_id": "d96bb845-5363-49eb-9051-193653184aea", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:13.124202Z", "task_id": "e1cbd6c6-8854-4450-82d5-95ce0c8ce010"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:23.088778Z", "entry_id": "a86854fb-e55c-4017-9fa7-0c1cc482dadb", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:50.203880Z", "task_id": "e482474e-4183-4754-a851-47714f85b300"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:34.551366Z", "entry_id": "820427e2-e10e-4584-b79f-3cf61cd41eaf", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:41:23.116314Z", "task_id": "30f61eeb-a035-46cc-abdc-6b6f5739adf5"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:10.104938Z", "entry_id": "8700fdc7-04b9-434e-8d4c-57624426aa37", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:34.593119Z", "task_id": "ccec29a1-b02c-4742-8db6-49ad2eba25fe"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:11.635726Z", "entry_id": "ed2520bb-67ab-4398-acbb-4a9be462eb66", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:10.131666Z", "task_id": "33466fe1-002b-45ab-b72c-01ecd8f9e115"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:44.039656Z", "entry_id": "ff965588-db9e-4105-bfc0-c07924ba0434", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:11.662375Z", "task_id": "c0c05562-b28e-4bb3-9b25-0260a3c23975"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:57:12.161716Z", "entry_id": "d5dcde73-b85f-4b13-b18a-f1327864e44b", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:54:44.068375Z", "task_id": "fc69c40e-67db-4e62-96ee-ee5e6a24b22d"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:58:09.607409Z", "entry_id": "5dc7685c-0078-4b9f-b2b3-0bf4007bb6cc", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:57:12.213649Z", "task_id": "04056c36-37e9-4a83-873a-f3add3e30020"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:04:05.137554Z", "entry_id": "57c2a856-1e06-492f-aabe-84da752cd69e", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:58:09.633987Z", "task_id": "7597661d-1f4c-47ac-92b6-91cdb2683b48"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:40.522731Z", "entry_id": "4647d8bb-7cbe-4108-8949-92bb97b31d42", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:04:05.164913Z", "task_id": "0fceb6dc-e5f6-4a55-93d5-2de71d7bbbfb"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:06:34.852003Z", "entry_id": "ff63b65d-ca4b-4f82-82a0-9fdf02b37ce2", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:40.564126Z", "task_id": "251b3eed-346e-455e-9173-455da53e3049"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:07:51.237350Z", "entry_id": "c6d7fc8c-7b25-4b71-b459-c2eb0862d5ec", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:06:34.878797Z", "task_id": "ab7bf50b-6975-49b1-a30a-c6aa3d4e3615"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:09:12.268556Z", "entry_id": "2a5ceb2a-af41-4398-a9ee-7a610e89617c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/idea/leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-570-leveraging-verifier-based-reinforcement", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "ae1c0aae-eef3-4236-ae8b-df4eb6c92144", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:07:51.268270Z", "task_id": "0909ba9d-36f4-4074-9876-af7fdeaec490"} diff --git a/state/run-log/2026-05/e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412.jsonl b/state/run-log/2026-05/e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ad0521430 --- /dev/null +++ b/state/run-log/2026-05/e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:26.012334Z", "entry_id": "8bf447b5-dcc2-4d29-bff8-500573c5c6eb", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:38:14.756187Z", "task_id": "b4932129-6f13-4dc5-957e-c0a3f4e08830"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_writing_quality", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:00.148755Z", "entry_id": "3739dfcc-76a1-47de-9ba7-a3242945acaf", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_writing_quality__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:40:26.038158Z", "task_id": "d420fe38-a050-4c06-85ea-1915aa543fc2"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_logical_consistency", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:20.968104Z", "entry_id": "916934ec-95a6-4b64-99c7-e76e12625bbb", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_logical_consistency__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:42:00.175978Z", "task_id": "ce75b63b-35bb-4be7-a437-9f73eb1f1c54"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:48.622207Z", "entry_id": "8bbc80cf-2c51-4eba-9dd7-a27215f30ad7", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_claim_accuracy__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:44:20.999700Z", "task_id": "114b810a-7e6a-4a2f-8dd6-35ff842929e9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_overreach", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:43.819563Z", "entry_id": "d3a5ff51-b348-403f-a101-c3a10be40093", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_overreach__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:49:48.650043Z", "task_id": "7197e007-b614-4567-a207-ddf886f63757"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_safety_ethics", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:56.143909Z", "entry_id": "b9f9de5f-2ef4-4571-bf8a-b7a61dba2229", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_safety_ethics__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:51:43.846619Z", "task_id": "be403135-e18a-4d33-b099-f92a428acffe"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:53:55.586052Z", "entry_id": "b3ce8fbf-7c8b-4800-99d6-11ab56c21b49", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_scientific_evidence__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:52:56.186389Z", "task_id": "0a85c38c-a33b-4163-997e-1caba2c563b6"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:55:27.835653Z", "entry_id": "6b4aaabc-f197-469f-8162-15cf56b13cba", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_statistical_analysis__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:53:55.633901Z", "task_id": "532a7c4a-777e-40ff-b205-2f8976e68ff7"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:56:06.770911Z", "entry_id": "496b49e8-6faf-4504-912d-df98da30f680", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_code_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:55:27.867980Z", "task_id": "d5f1fd70-ed20-4d67-b96b-b43b685585d0"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T14:56:44.403875Z", "entry_id": "00ac1bc2-11da-42f5-be4c-cd192c76c854", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_data_quality_paper__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:56:06.799961Z", "task_id": "356cb120-54bc-46b8-b537-17cbe87aebf2"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_text_formatting", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:02:25.641560Z", "entry_id": "d91c3999-af40-4c07-be8b-fc8fb625a479", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_text_formatting__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T14:56:44.430484Z", "task_id": "5aa7c10b-638e-47f4-ab1b-a5b7584dfe1a"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_figure_critic", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:21.115704Z", "entry_id": "07d2da2d-31cc-4a2b-bb2c-42662236bf1c", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_figure_critic__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:02:25.672678Z", "task_id": "22636cf9-8204-402e-867b-40b5c6cc09d9"} +{"agent_name": "paper_reviewer_jargon_police", "backend": "dartmouth", "cost_estimate_usd": 0.0, "ended_at": "2026-05-17T15:06:57.336703Z", "entry_id": "4b31feeb-dcd7-4f07-9538-c453fda81fff", "failure_reason": null, "inputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/idea/mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training.md"], "model_name": "qwen.qwen3.5-122b", "outcome": "success", "outputs": ["projects/PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training/paper/reviews/paper_reviewer_jargon_police__2026-05-17__paper.md"], "parent_entry_id": null, "project_id": "PROJ-566-mint-managed-infrastructure-for-training", "prompt_version": "1.0.0", "run_id": "e50b26f0-9311-43dd-9dc9-be9c36600412", "started_at": "2026-05-17T15:05:21.157809Z", "task_id": "19fcbbab-f384-4be3-b4e4-1d81768c3cf4"} diff --git a/tests/unit/test_paper_reviewer_arxiv_intake.py b/tests/unit/test_paper_reviewer_arxiv_intake.py index 7b5df6a48..a28061d2a 100644 --- a/tests/unit/test_paper_reviewer_arxiv_intake.py +++ b/tests/unit/test_paper_reviewer_arxiv_intake.py @@ -150,6 +150,125 @@ def test_real_world_proj_564_discovers_10_figures(self) -> None: assert any("pics/" in line for line in lines) +class TestTexConcatPrefersEntryPoint: + """Real-world failure on PROJ-578: the prompt sent to the reviewer + was 3,390 chars of *package declarations only* (extra_pkgs.tex sorts + before main.tex alphabetically; main.tex itself was 254KB > the old + 60KB budget, so it got skipped). The reviewer (correctly) called this + out as 'Incomplete LaTeX source' and demanded a major_revision. The + fix promotes the file containing ``\\documentclass`` (the entry + point) to the front so it always gets included, truncated if needed. + """ + + def test_promotes_documentclass_file_first(self, tmp_path: Path) -> None: + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _concat_tex + src = tmp_path / "source" + src.mkdir() + # extra_pkgs.tex sorts first alphabetically but is just packages. + (src / "extra_pkgs.tex").write_text(r"\usepackage{amsmath}", encoding="utf-8") + # main.tex is the entry point — must appear first in concat output. + (src / "main.tex").write_text( + r"\documentclass{article}\begin{document}HELLO\end{document}", + encoding="utf-8", + ) + out = _concat_tex(src) + idx_main = out.index("main.tex") + idx_pkgs = out.index("extra_pkgs.tex") + assert idx_main < idx_pkgs, ( + "entry-point file (with \\documentclass) must be inlined " + "BEFORE package files" + ) + assert "HELLO" in out + + def test_entry_point_included_even_when_budget_tight(self, tmp_path: Path) -> None: + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _concat_tex + src = tmp_path / "source" + src.mkdir() + big_body = "X" * 50_000 + (src / "extra_pkgs.tex").write_text(r"\usepackage{amsmath}", encoding="utf-8") + (src / "main.tex").write_text( + r"\documentclass{article}\begin{document}" + big_body + r"\end{document}", + encoding="utf-8", + ) + # Budget smaller than main.tex — old code would skip main.tex + # entirely and only include the tiny package file. New code must + # include main.tex (truncated) since it's the entry point. + out = _concat_tex(src, max_chars=10_000) + assert "main.tex" in out + assert "truncated to fit budget" in out + + def test_real_world_proj_578_includes_actual_paper_body(self) -> None: + """Smoke test against PROJ-578 (the failure that motivated the fix). + Skips if PROJ-578 isn't checked out.""" + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _concat_tex + repo = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2] + src = repo / "projects" / "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906" / "paper" / "source" + if not src.is_dir(): + pytest.skip("PROJ-578 source not checked out") + out = _concat_tex(src) + # The old prompt had ~3,390 chars (just extra_pkgs.tex + truncation + # marker). The new prompt must include the real paper body. + assert len(out) > 50_000, ( + f"expected ≥50KB of tex concat, got {len(out)} chars — " + "the entry-point file is probably being skipped again" + ) + # MemLens defines a custom \bench command in the main file — + # confirms we have the actual paper body, not just packages. + assert "MemLens" in out or "\\bench" in out + + +class TestBibSummary: + """For arXiv-intake papers, ``state/citations/.yaml`` is never + populated — only the .bib file under paper/source/ exists. The + reviewer must fall back to inlining that .bib so it can see what's + cited (otherwise the reviewer correctly says 'no citations recorded' + and demands a major_revision).""" + + def test_summarize_bibfile_includes_content(self, tmp_path: Path) -> None: + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _summarize_bibfile + src = tmp_path / "source" + src.mkdir() + (src / "ref.bib").write_text( + "@article{smith2024,\n title={A paper},\n author={Smith},\n}\n", + encoding="utf-8", + ) + out = _summarize_bibfile(src) + assert "ref.bib" in out + assert "smith2024" in out + assert "A paper" in out + + def test_summarize_bibfile_empty_when_no_bib(self, tmp_path: Path) -> None: + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _summarize_bibfile + src = tmp_path / "source" + src.mkdir() + (src / "main.tex").write_text("x", encoding="utf-8") + out = _summarize_bibfile(src) + assert out == "" + + def test_summarize_bibfile_truncates_at_budget(self, tmp_path: Path) -> None: + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _summarize_bibfile + src = tmp_path / "source" + src.mkdir() + # 100KB of bib entries + big = ("@article{a,\n title={hello},\n}\n" * 4000) + (src / "ref.bib").write_text(big, encoding="utf-8") + out = _summarize_bibfile(src, max_chars=5000) + assert "ref.bib" in out + assert "truncated" in out + assert len(out) <= 5200 # small slack for header + + def test_real_world_proj_578_inlines_refbib(self) -> None: + """Smoke test against PROJ-578 ref.bib (46KB).""" + from llmxive.agents.paper_reviewer import _summarize_bibfile + repo = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2] + src = repo / "projects" / "PROJ-578-https-arxiv-org-abs-2605-14906" / "paper" / "source" + if not src.is_dir(): + pytest.skip("PROJ-578 source not checked out") + out = _summarize_bibfile(src) + assert "ref.bib" in out + assert len(out) > 10_000 + + class TestArxivIntakeMetadataBlock: """The reviewer prompt must include a 'paper provenance' header for arxiv-intake papers so the LLM knows it's reviewing a third-party @@ -161,3 +280,19 @@ def test_intake_block_exists_in_source(self) -> None: assert "Paper provenance — IMPORTANT context" in text assert "third-party" in text or "ingested verbatim" in text assert "submitter field is the llmXive intake" in text + + +class TestScoreNormalization: + """LLM occasionally picks a verdict but writes the wrong score + (e.g., verdict=accept score=0.0). The score↔verdict binding is + invariant — we normalize on parse so a typo doesn't lose a + substantive review to a validation error.""" + + def test_handle_response_normalizes_accept_score(self) -> None: + src = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2] / "src" / "llmxive" / "agents" / "paper_reviewer.py" + text = src.read_text() + # The normalization is deterministic; document its presence so + # future refactors don't silently drop it. + assert 'verdict == "accept"' in text + assert 'front["score"] = 0.5' in text + assert 'front["score"] = 0.0' in text