arXiv subjects

Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh

Publications and source records attributed to Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Peerify: Benchmarking Peer-Review Claim Verification

Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing, yet verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by manuscript evidence remains a largely manual and time-consuming process. We present Peerify, a pipeline for manuscript-grounded verification of peer-review claims. Given a manuscript and a review comment, the Peerify pipeline decomposes reviews into atomic claims, retrieves relevant manuscript evidence, and determines whether each claim is supported by the paper. To support the development and evaluation of the pipeline, we construct a benchmark of 800 claims derived from authentic peer-review interactions collected from NeurIPS 2024 and ICLR 2024, including a 300-claim hand-labeled subset used to audit the automated supervision. We evaluate state-of-the-art language models and retrieval strategies within the Peerify pipeline, together with entailment baselines. Our results demonstrate the importance of retrieval-centered verification and claim decomposition, while highlighting the challenges posed by ambiguous and interpretive reviewer claims. Automated labels agree with human consensus on 90.3% of audited claims ($κ= 0.87$), while off-the-shelf entailment models stay below 0.24 macro-F1.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Deep-Bench: Deep Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Generation

Deep learning (DL) has revolutionized areas such as computer vision, natural language processing, and more. However, developing DL systems is challenging due to the complexity of DL workflows. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT, Claude, Llama, Mistral, etc., have emerged as promising tools to assist in DL code generation, offering potential solutions to these challenges. Despite this, existing benchmarks such as DS-1000 are limited, as they primarily focus on small DL code snippets related to pre/post-processing tasks and lack a comprehensive coverage of the full DL pipeline, including different DL phases and input data types. To address this, we introduce DeepBench, a novel benchmark dataset designed for function-level DL code generation. DeepBench categorizes DL problems based on three key aspects: phases such as pre-processing, model construction, and training; tasks, including classification, regression, and recommendation; and input data types such as tabular, image, and text. GPT-4o -- the state-of-the-art LLM -- achieved 31% accuracy on DeepBench, significantly lower than its 60% on DS-1000. We observed similar difficulty for other LLMs (e.g., 28% vs. 54% for Claude, 21% vs. 41% for LLaMA, and 15% vs. 20% for Mistral). This result underscores DeepBench's greater complexity. We also construct a taxonomy of issues and bugs found in LLM-generated DL code, which highlights the distinct challenges that LLMs face when generating DL code compared to general code. Furthermore, our analysis also reveals substantial performance variations across categories, with differences of up to 7% among phases and 37% among tasks. These disparities suggest that DeepBench offers valuable insights into the LLMs' performance and areas for potential improvement in the DL domain.

cs.SE↗