Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05457v1
• Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:51:40 GMT
• Title: Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer Review
• Authors: Liang Niu, Nian Xue, Christina P\"opper
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.081120388114928
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Peer review is the method employed by the scientific community for evaluating research advancements. 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. Specifically, we investigate the predictability of reviewing outcomes by comparing the results obtained from human reviewers and machine-learning models. To facilitate our study, we construct a comprehensive dataset by collecting thousands of papers from renowned computer science conferences and the arXiv preprint website. Based on the collected data, we evaluate the prediction capabilities of ChatGPT and a two-stage classification approach based on the Doc2Vec model with various classifiers. Our experimental evaluation of review outcome prediction using the Doc2Vec-based approach performs significantly better than the ChatGPT and achieves an accuracy of over 90%. While analyzing the experimental results, we identify the potential advantages and limitations of the tested ML models. We explore areas within the paper-reviewing process that can benefit from automated support approaches, while also recognizing the irreplaceable role of human intellect in certain aspects that cannot be matched by state-of-the-art AI techniques.

Related papers

• Self-Training with Pseudo-Label Scorer for Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction [54.23208041792073]
  Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction (ASQP) aims to predict all quads (aspect term, aspect category, opinion term, sentiment polarity) for a given review. A key challenge in the ASQP task is the scarcity of labeled data, which limits the performance of existing methods. We propose a self-training framework with a pseudo-label scorer, wherein a scorer assesses the match between reviews and their pseudo-labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T05:30:21Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T23:11:06Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Value: CHECKLIST for Testing Inferences in Planning-Based RL [20.360392791376707]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) agents are commonly evaluated via their expected value over a distribution of test scenarios. We consider testing RL agents that make decisions via online tree search using a learned transition model and value function. We present a user study involving knowledgeable AI researchers using the approach to evaluate an agent trained to play a complex real-time strategy game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T18:16:05Z)
• 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)
• Hierarchical Bi-Directional Self-Attention Networks for Paper Review Rating Recommendation [81.55533657694016]
  We propose a Hierarchical bi-directional self-attention Network framework (HabNet) for paper review rating prediction and recommendation. Specifically, we leverage the hierarchical structure of the paper reviews with three levels of encoders: sentence encoder (level one), intra-review encoder (level two) and inter-review encoder (level three) We are able to identify useful predictors to make the final acceptance decision, as well as to help discover the inconsistency between numerical review ratings and text sentiment conveyed by reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T08:07:50Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

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.