Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10886v2
• Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:40:45 GMT
• Title: Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation
• Authors: Zhaolin Gao, Kianté Brantley, Thorsten Joachims,
• Abstract summary: We propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2. Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address. We generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts.
• Score: 28.050468098801872
• License:
• Abstract: Recent developments in LLMs offer new opportunities for assisting authors in improving their work. In this paper, we envision a use case where authors can receive LLM-generated reviews that uncover weak points in the current draft. While initial methods for automated review generation already exist, these methods tend to produce reviews that lack detail, and they do not cover the range of opinions that human reviewers produce. To address this shortcoming, we propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2. Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address. We show that this leads to more detailed reviews that better cover the range of aspects that human reviewers identify in the draft. As part of the research, we generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts, which we make available as a resource for future research.

Related papers

• LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet? [15.785989492351684]
  This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract. For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper. In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T01:12:26Z)
• 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)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review. The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system. We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• 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)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• Review-LLM: Harnessing Large Language Models for Personalized Review Generation [8.898103706804616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown superior text modeling and generating ability. We propose Review-LLM that customizes LLMs for personalized review generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T09:22:19Z)
• 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)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• Towards Personalized Review Summarization by Modeling Historical Reviews from Customer and Product Separately [59.61932899841944]
  Review summarization is a non-trivial task that aims to summarize the main idea of the product review in the E-commerce website. We propose the Heterogeneous Historical Review aware Review Summarization Model (HHRRS) We employ a multi-task framework that conducts the review sentiment classification and summarization jointly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T12:32:55Z)
• 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)

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.