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
- 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) - Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via
Reinforcement Learning [50.067342343957876]
We propose a framework for feedback generation that optimize both correctness and alignment using reinforcement learning (RL)
Specifically, we use GPT-4's annotations to create preferences over feedback pairs in an augmented dataset for training via direct preference optimization (DPO)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-02T20:25:50Z) - A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews.
The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised.
This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z) - Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A
large-scale empirical analysis [38.905758846360435]
High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain.
With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback.
We created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-03T04:14:17Z) - 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) - Comparative Analysis of GPT-4 and Human Graders in Evaluating Praise
Given to Students in Synthetic Dialogues [2.3361634876233817]
Large language models, such as the AI-chatbot ChatGPT, hold potential for offering constructive feedback to tutors in practical settings.
The accuracy of AI-generated feedback remains uncertain, with scant research investigating the ability of models like ChatGPT to deliver effective feedback.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-05T04:14:01Z) - 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.