A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12928v4
• Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:06:59 GMT
• Title: A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
• Authors: Penghai Zhao, Xin Zhang, Ming-Ming Cheng, Jian Yang, Xiang Li,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 58.6354685593418
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: By consolidating scattered knowledge, the literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of the investigated topic. However, reading, conducting, or peer-reviewing review papers generally demands a significant investment of time and effort from researchers. To improve efficiency, this paper aims to provide a thorough review of reviews in the PAMI field from diverse perspectives. First, this paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. To facilitate this, a meta-data database dubbed RiPAMI, and a topic dataset are constructed. Second, based on these indicators, the study presents comparative analyses of representative reviews, unveiling the characteristics of publications across various fields, periods, and journals. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised, and the observed differences suggest that most AI-generated reviews still lag behind human-authored reviews in multiple aspects. Third, we briefly provide a subjective evaluation of representative PAMI reviews and introduce a paper structure-based typology of literature reviews. This typology may improve the clarity and effectiveness for scholars in reading and writing reviews, while also serving as a guide for AI systems in generating well-organized reviews. Finally, this work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.

Related papers

• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving fine-grained aspects from a corpus of peer reviews. We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• 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)
• Automating Bibliometric Analysis with Sentence Transformers and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): A Pilot Study in Semantic and Contextual Search for Customized Literature Characterization for High-Impact Urban Research [2.1728621449144763]
  Bibliometric analysis is essential for understanding research trends, scope, and impact in urban science. Traditional methods, relying on keyword searches, often fail to uncover valuable insights not explicitly stated in article titles or keywords. We leverage Generative AI models, specifically transformers and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), to automate and enhance bibliometric analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T05:13:27Z)
• 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)
• AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents [13.826819101545926]
  We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers' biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T15:22:12Z)
• 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)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is an AI-based system for ideation and operationalization of novel work. ResearchAgent automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• CASIMIR: A Corpus of Scientific Articles enhanced with Multiple Author-Integrated Revisions [7.503795054002406]
  We propose an original textual resource on the revision step of the writing process of scientific articles. This new dataset, called CASIMIR, contains the multiple revised versions of 15,646 scientific articles from OpenReview, along with their peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T03:07:32Z)
• 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)
• Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review: A Benchmark [36.22298354302282]
  We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T07:13:35Z)
• Artificial intelligence technologies to support research assessment: A review [10.203602318836444]
  This literature review identifies indicators that associate with higher impact or higher quality research from article text. It includes studies that used machine learning techniques to predict citation counts or quality scores for journal articles or conference papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-11T06:58:39Z)
• 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)
• State-of-the-art generalisation research in NLP: A taxonomy and review [87.1541712509283]
  We present a taxonomy for characterising and understanding generalisation research in NLP. Our taxonomy is based on an extensive literature review of generalisation research. We use our taxonomy to classify over 400 papers that test generalisation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T16:53:33Z)
• 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)
• A Systematic Literature Review of Empiricism and Norms of Reporting in Computing Education Research Literature [4.339510167603376]
  The goal of this study is to characterize the reporting of empiricism in Computing Education Research (CER) literature. We conducted an SLR of 427 papers published during 2014 and 2015 in five CER venues. Over 80% of papers had some form of empirical evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-02T16:37:29Z)

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.