Discuss More, Comment Less: Boosting Automated Research via Multi-Perspective Collaborative Review

Abstract

As automated research is increasingly adopted for writing papers, automated review has become a critical link between paper generation and quality control. However, existing methods largely rely on single-model feedback or simple review aggregation, failing to explicitly model expert responsibilities or collective deliberation in actual peer reviews, which limits effective cross-examination and reliable decision-making. Therefore, we formulate paper review as a computational modeling problem of peer review mechanisms and propose RoundtableReview, a deliberative multi-agent framework for enhancing automated research. RoundtableReview structures each paper into eight semantic slots and coordinates six academic and industry reviewers with complementary perspectives, retrieval sources, and specialized responsibilities. Through independent assessment, cross-examination, roundtable deliberation, dynamically weighted voting, and chair synthesis, the framework generates evidence-based and traceable feedback. Experiments on two automated research backbones show that the method improves paper quality in both backbones and outperforms baselines in automatic and human evaluations with fewer comments.