Mapping the Challenges of HCI: An Application and Evaluation of ChatGPT and GPT-4 for Mining Insights at Scale

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05036v4
• Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:47:23 GMT
• Title: Mapping the Challenges of HCI: An Application and Evaluation of ChatGPT and GPT-4 for Mining Insights at Scale
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the combination of ChatGPT and GPT-4 for the real-world task of mining insights from a text corpus. We extract 4,392 research challenges in over 100 topics from the 2023CHI conference proceedings. We conclude that the combination of ChatGPT and GPT-4 makes an excellent cost-efficient means for analyzing a text corpus at scale.
• Score: 4.6542291555324296
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, are gaining wide-spread real world use. Yet, these LLMs are closed source, and little is known about their performance in real-world use cases. In this paper, we apply and evaluate the combination of ChatGPT and GPT-4 for the real-world task of mining insights from a text corpus in order to identify research challenges in the field of HCI. We extract 4,392 research challenges in over 100 topics from the 2023~CHI conference proceedings and visualize the research challenges for interactive exploration. We critically evaluate the LLMs on this practical task and conclude that the combination of ChatGPT and GPT-4 makes an excellent cost-efficient means for analyzing a text corpus at scale. Cost-efficiency is key for flexibly prototyping research ideas and analyzing text corpora from different perspectives, with implications for applying LLMs for mining insights in academia and practice.

Related papers

• Let's Use ChatGPT To Write Our Paper! Benchmarking LLMs To Write the Introduction of a Research Paper [64.50822834679101]
  SciIG is a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works.<n>We assess five state-of-the-art models, including open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems.<n>Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T21:11:11Z)
• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models [57.27152890085759]
  Decomposed Requirements Following Ratio (DRFR) is a new metric for evaluating Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to follow instructions. We present InFoBench, a benchmark comprising 500 diverse instructions and 2,250 decomposed questions across multiple constraint categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-07T23:01:56Z)
• Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators [121.15880285283116]
  This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of large language models (LLMs) in solving recent programming problems in Codeforces. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, theThoughtived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T18:58:57Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good Multi-Party Conversation Solver? [42.939861319863795]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as influential instruments within the realm of natural language processing. In this paper, we delve into the potential of generative LLMs within the context of multi-party conversations. An empirical analysis is conducted to assess the zero-shot learning capabilities of ChatGPT and GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T02:18:40Z)
• GLoRE: Evaluating Logical Reasoning of Large Language Models [29.914546407784552]
  We introduce GLoRE, a benchmark comprised of 12 datasets that span three different types of tasks. ChatGPT and GPT-4 show a strong capability of logical reasoning, with GPT-4 surpassing ChatGPT by a large margin. We propose a self-consistency probing method to enhance the accuracy of ChatGPT and a fine-tuned method to boost the performance of an open LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T13:52:15Z)
• Pushing the Limits of ChatGPT on NLP Tasks [79.17291002710517]
  Despite the success of ChatGPT, its performances on most NLP tasks are still well below the supervised baselines. In this work, we looked into the causes, and discovered that its subpar performance was caused by the following factors. We propose a collection of general modules to address these issues, in an attempt to push the limits of ChatGPT on NLP tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T09:40:05Z)
• On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writing [10.534162347659514]
  We develop a deep neural framework named CheckGPT to better capture the subtle and deep semantic and linguistic patterns in ChatGPT written literature. To evaluate the detectability of ChatGPT content, we conduct extensive experiments on the transferability, prompt engineering, and robustness of CheckGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T12:33:24Z)
• A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets [19.521390684403293]
  We present a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on diverse academic datasets. Specifically, we evaluate ChatGPT across 140 tasks and analyze 255K responses it generates in these datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T12:37:21Z)
• Is GPT-4 a Good Data Analyst? [67.35956981748699]
  We consider GPT-4 as a data analyst to perform end-to-end data analysis with databases from a wide range of domains. We design several task-specific evaluation metrics to systematically compare the performance between several professional human data analysts and GPT-4. Experimental results show that GPT-4 can achieve comparable performance to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:26:59Z)
• Summary of ChatGPT-Related Research and Perspective Towards the Future of Large Language Models [40.557611946967086]
  This paper presents a survey of ChatGPT-related (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) research, state-of-the-art large language models (LLM) from the GPT series, and their prospective applications across diverse domains. We performed an in-depth analysis of 194 relevant papers on arXiv, encompassing trend analysis, word cloud representation, and distribution analysis across various application domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T15:01:06Z)
• Exploring the Limits of ChatGPT for Query or Aspect-based Text Summarization [28.104696513516117]
  Large language models (LLMs) like GPT3 and ChatGPT have recently created significant interest in using these models for text summarization tasks. Recent studies citegoyal2022news, zhang2023benchmarking have shown that LLMs-generated news summaries are already on par with humans. Our experiments reveal that ChatGPT's performance is comparable to traditional fine-tuning methods in terms of Rouge scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T04:41:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.