GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05492v1
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 23:11:06 GMT
- Title: GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study
- Authors: Zachary Robertson
- Abstract summary: GPT4 was developed to assist in the peer-review process.
By comparing reviews generated by both human reviewers and GPT models for academic papers submitted to a major machine learning conference, we provide initial evidence that artificial intelligence can contribute effectively to the peer-review process.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: In this pilot study, we investigate the use of GPT4 to assist in the
peer-review process. Our key hypothesis was that GPT-generated reviews could
achieve comparable helpfulness to human reviewers. By comparing reviews
generated by both human reviewers and GPT models for academic papers submitted
to a major machine learning conference, we provide initial evidence that
artificial intelligence can contribute effectively to the peer-review process.
We also perform robustness experiments with inserted errors to understand which
parts of the paper the model tends to focus on. Our findings open new avenues
for leveraging machine learning tools to address resource constraints in peer
review. The results also shed light on potential enhancements to the review
process and lay the groundwork for further research on scaling oversight in a
domain where human-feedback is increasingly a scarce resource.
Related papers
- Generative Adversarial Reviews: When LLMs Become the Critic [1.2430809884830318]
We introduce Generative Agent Reviewers (GAR), leveraging LLM-empowered agents to simulate faithful peer reviewers.
Central to this approach is a graph-based representation of manuscripts, condensing content and logically organizing information.
Our experiments demonstrate that GAR performs comparably to human reviewers in providing detailed feedback and predicting paper outcomes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-09T06:58:17Z) - Streamlining the review process: AI-generated annotations in research manuscripts [0.5735035463793009]
This study explores the potential of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into the peer-review process to enhance efficiency without compromising effectiveness.
We focus on manuscript annotations, particularly excerpt highlights, as a potential area for AI-human collaboration.
This paper introduces AnnotateGPT, a platform that utilizes GPT-4 for manuscript review, aiming to improve reviewers' comprehension and focus.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-29T23:26:34Z) - What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error.
Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing.
We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z) - Open Source Language Models Can Provide Feedback: Evaluating LLMs' Ability to Help Students Using GPT-4-As-A-Judge [4.981275578987307]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for the automatic generation of feedback in a wide range of computing contexts.
However, concerns have been voiced around the privacy and ethical implications of sending student work to proprietary models.
This has sparked considerable interest in the use of open source LLMs in education, but the quality of the feedback that such open models can produce remains understudied.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-08T17:57:39Z) - A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.
This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.
We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z) - CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting.
CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z) - Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer
Review [4.081120388114928]
In the field of cybersecurity, the practice of double-blind peer review is the de-facto standard.
This paper touches on the holy grail of peer reviewing and aims to shed light on the performance of AI in reviewing for academic security conferences.
We investigate the predictability of reviewing outcomes by comparing the results obtained from human reviewers and machine-learning models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-11T13:51:40Z) - NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review [58.71736531356398]
We introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues.
We augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information.
Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-12T12:29:38Z) - Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model
Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs)
We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date.
We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z) - Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores.
We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)
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.