Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08298v1
• Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:53:57 GMT
• Title: Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?
• Authors: Josu Ceberio, Borja Calvo
• Abstract summary: In this paper, we focus on the field of metaheuristic optimization, since it is our main field of work. Our main goal is to sew the seed of sincere critical assessment of our work, sparking a reflection process both at the individual and the community level. All the statements included in this document are personal views and opinions, which can be shared by others or not.
• Score: 1.74048653626208
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Experimentation is an intrinsic part of research in artificial intelligence since it allows for collecting quantitative observations, validating hypotheses, and providing evidence for their reformulation. For that reason, experimentation must be coherent with the purposes of the research, properly addressing the relevant questions in each case. Unfortunately, the literature is full of works whose experimentation is neither rigorous nor convincing, oftentimes designed to support prior beliefs rather than answering the relevant research questions. In this paper, we focus on the field of metaheuristic optimization, since it is our main field of work, and it is where we have observed the misconduct that has motivated this letter. Even if we limit the focus of this manuscript to the experimental part of the research, our main goal is to sew the seed of sincere critical assessment of our work, sparking a reflection process both at the individual and the community level. Such a reflection process is too complex and extensive to be tackled as a whole. Therefore, to bring our feet to the ground, we will include in this document our reflections about the role of experimentation in our work, discussing topics such as the use of benchmark instances vs instance generators, or the statistical assessment of empirical results. That is, all the statements included in this document are personal views and opinions, which can be shared by others or not. Certainly, having different points of view is the basis to establish a good discussion process.

Related papers

• Good Idea or Not, Representation of LLM Could Tell [86.36317971482755]
  We focus on idea assessment, which aims to leverage the knowledge of large language models to assess the merit of scientific ideas. We release a benchmark dataset from nearly four thousand manuscript papers with full texts, meticulously designed to train and evaluate the performance of different approaches to this task. Our findings suggest that the representations of large language models hold more potential in quantifying the value of ideas than their generative outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-07T02:07:22Z)
• My part is bigger than yours -- assessment within a group of peers [0.0]
  A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T22:54:51Z)
• 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)
• Chain-of-Factors Paper-Reviewer Matching [32.86512592730291]
  We propose a unified model for paper-reviewer matching that jointly considers semantic, topic, and citation factors. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed Chain-of-Factors model in comparison with state-of-the-art paper-reviewer matching methods and scientific pre-trained language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T01:29:18Z)
• Scientific Opinion Summarization: Paper Meta-review Generation Dataset, Methods, and Evaluation [55.00687185394986]
  We propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. We introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences. Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:33:35Z)
• Twin Papers: A Simple Framework of Causal Inference for Citations via Coupling [40.60905158071766]
  The main difficulty in investigating the effects is that we need to know counterfactual results, which are not available in reality. The proposed framework regards a pair of papers that cite each other as twins. We investigate twin papers that adopted different decisions, observe the progress of the research impact brought by these studies, and estimate the effect of decisions by the difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-21T10:42:33Z)
• Near-Optimal Reviewer Splitting in Two-Phase Paper Reviewing and Conference Experiment Design [76.40919326501512]
  We consider the question: how should reviewers be divided between phases or conditions in order to maximize total assignment similarity? We empirically show that across several datasets pertaining to real conference data, dividing reviewers between phases/conditions uniformly at random allows an assignment that is nearly as good as the oracle optimal assignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-13T19:29:41Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• What Makes a Good Summary? Reconsidering the Focus of Automatic Summarization [49.600619575148706]
  We find that the current focus of the field does not fully align with participants' wishes. Based on our findings, we argue that it is important to adopt a broader perspective on automatic summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T15:12:35Z)
• Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews [4.552676857046446]
  We propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. We provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T16:06:21Z)
• Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviews [12.472629584751509]
  We show that the distribution of aspect-based sentiments obtained from a review is significantly different for accepted and rejected papers. As a second objective, we quantify the extent of disagreement among the reviewers refereeing a paper. We also investigate the extent of disagreement between the reviewers and the chair and find that the inter-reviewer disagreement may have a link to the disagreement with the chair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T07:06:01Z)

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.