NLLG Quarterly arXiv Report 06/23: What are the most influential current AI Papers?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04889v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 11:53:52 GMT
• Title: NLLG Quarterly arXiv Report 06/23: What are the most influential current AI Papers?
• Authors: Steffen Eger and Christoph Leiter and Jonas Belouadi and Ran Zhang and Aida Kostikova and Daniil Larionov and Yanran Chen and Vivian Fresen
• Abstract summary: The objective is to offer a quick guide to the most relevant and widely discussed research, aiding both newcomers and established researchers in staying abreast of current trends. We observe the dominance of papers related to Large Language Models (LLMs) and specifically ChatGPT during the first half of 2023. NLP related papers are the most influential (around 60% of top papers) even though there are twice as many ML related papers in our data.
• Score: 15.830129136642755
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of information in the field of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly in the subfields of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML), presents a significant challenge for researchers and practitioners to keep pace with the latest developments. To address the problem of information overload, this report by the Natural Language Learning Group at Bielefeld University focuses on identifying the most popular papers on arXiv, with a specific emphasis on NLP and ML. The objective is to offer a quick guide to the most relevant and widely discussed research, aiding both newcomers and established researchers in staying abreast of current trends. In particular, we compile a list of the 40 most popular papers based on normalized citation counts from the first half of 2023. We observe the dominance of papers related to Large Language Models (LLMs) and specifically ChatGPT during the first half of 2023, with the latter showing signs of declining popularity more recently, however. Further, NLP related papers are the most influential (around 60\% of top papers) even though there are twice as many ML related papers in our data. Core issues investigated in the most heavily cited papers are: LLM efficiency, evaluation techniques, ethical considerations, embodied agents, and problem-solving with LLMs. Additionally, we examine the characteristics of top papers in comparison to others outside the top-40 list (noticing the top paper's focus on LLM related issues and higher number of co-authors) and analyze the citation distributions in our dataset, among others.

Related papers

• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• RelevAI-Reviewer: A Benchmark on AI Reviewers for Survey Paper Relevance [0.8089605035945486]
  We propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem. We introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. We develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T06:42:32Z)
• REASONS: A benchmark for REtrieval and Automated citationS Of scieNtific Sentences using Public and Proprietary LLMs [41.64918533152914]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating references based on two forms of sentence queries. From around 20K research articles, we make the following deductions on public and proprietary LLMs. Our study contributes valuable insights into the reliability of RAG for automated citation generation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T16:38:51Z)
• Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
  We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [69.72787936480394]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks. LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
  We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z)
• NLLG Quarterly arXiv Report 09/23: What are the most influential current AI Papers? [21.68589129842815]
  The US dominates among both top-40 and top-9k papers, followed by China. Europe clearly lags behind and is hardly represented in the top-40 most cited papers. US industry is largely overrepresented in the top-40 most influential papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T21:42:20Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)
• Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP [63.13508571014673]
  We show how far back in time do we tend to go to cite papers? How has that changed over time, and what factors correlate with this citational attention/amnesia? We show that around 62% of cited papers are from the immediate five years prior to publication, whereas only about 17% are more than ten years old. We show that the median age and age diversity of cited papers were steadily increasing from 1990 to 2014, but since then, the trend has reversed, and current NLP papers have an all-time low temporal citation diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T18:30:34Z)
• Did AI get more negative recently? [17.610382230820395]
  We classify scientific articles in the domain of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) as core subfields of artificial intelligence (AI) We refer to contributions under (i) as having a 'positive stance' and contributions under (ii) as having a 'negative stance' We analyse large-scale trends on over 41 k papers from the last approximately 35 years in NLP and ML, finding that papers have become substantially more positive over time, but negative papers also got more negative and we observe considerably more negative papers in recent years.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T08:37:03Z)

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.