IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR
Karun Sharma, Vidushee Vats, Shengzhi Li, Yuxiang Wang, Zhongtian Sun, Prayag Tiwari
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. ...
From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.
Researcher verdict
Reference-only page for now
Use this page for paper context, links, and cautious triage only. The current benchmark signals are too weak or indirect to support a confident implementation or benchmark decision.
Why this page is still worth reading
- Some benchmark signal exists, but it is still too thin to support a confident benchmark judgment.
- Reproduction risks are surfaced explicitly, which helps decide whether the paper is worth immediate prototyping.
Benchmark trust
Some benchmark signal exists in the extracted evidence, but it is not structured strongly enough yet for a confident benchmark decision.
Use this page as
Use this page for context, citations, and paper triage rather than immediate implementation.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transformer | DROP | IA-32B | 95.1 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Transformer | MuSR | IA-32B | 68.3 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Transformer | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Eff. | 57 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: Transformer.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
What is known right now
This page is not strong enough for a full AI-written research brief yet, so the summary is reduced to what is evidenced, what is missing, and what to do next.
What is known
- Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation.
- Benchmark anchor: Transformer on DROP using IA-32B.
What is missing
- Benchmark evidence is not yet strong enough to treat the LLM brief as fully researcher-ready.
- There is no verified maintained implementation path yet.
What to do next
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: Transformer.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction path
Follow this baseline workflow to decide if this paper is worth immediate prototyping.
- 1
Use the paper and benchmark evidence to scope a baseline reproduction plan.
- 2
Start from this likely method family: Transformer.
- 3
Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Framework baselines
- Hugging Face Transformers training guide
Modern transformer training baseline.
- PyTorch nn.Transformer docs
Reference transformer building block implementation.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Transformer
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.