LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16253v2
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:04:38 GMT
- Title: LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing
- Authors: Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao, Zhongfen Deng, Shuaiqi Liu, Renze Lou, Henry Peng Zou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Nan Zhang, Mukund Srinath, Haoran Ranran Zhang, Vipul Gupta, Yinghui Li, Tao Li, Fei Wang, Qin Liu, Tianlin Liu, Pengzhi Gao, Congying Xia, Chen Xing, Jiayang Cheng, Zhaowei Wang, Ying Su, Raj Sanjay Shah, Ruohao Guo, Jing Gu, Haoran Li, Kangda Wei, Zihao Wang, Lu Cheng, Surangika Ranathunga, Meng Fang, Jie Fu, Fei Liu, Ruihong Huang, Eduardo Blanco, Yixin Cao, Rui Zhang, Philip S. Yu, Wenpeng Yin,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 106.45895712717612
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
Related papers
- Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [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) - Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? [18.378744138365537]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving.
This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs in authorship analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-13T03:22:02Z) - Benchmarking LLMs on the Semantic Overlap Summarization Task [9.656095701778975]
This paper comprehensively evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) on the Semantic Overlap Summarization (SOS) task.
We report well-established metrics like ROUGE, BERTscore, and SEM-F1$ on two different datasets of alternative narratives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T20:33:50Z) - Prompting LLMs to Compose Meta-Review Drafts from Peer-Review Narratives
of Scholarly Manuscripts [6.2701471990853594]
Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate meta-reviews based on peer-review narratives from multiple experts.
In this paper, we perform a case study with three popular LLMs to automatically generate meta-reviews.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-23T20:14:16Z) - 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) - PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs.
We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z) - Can LLMs Grade Short-Answer Reading Comprehension Questions : An Empirical Study with a Novel Dataset [0.0]
This paper investigates the potential for the newest version of Large Language Models (LLMs) to be used in short answer questions for formative assessments.
It introduces a novel dataset of short answer reading comprehension questions, drawn from a set of reading assessments conducted with over 150 students in Ghana.
The paper empirically evaluates how well various configurations of generative LLMs grade student short answer responses compared to expert human raters.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-26T17:05:40Z) - Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks.
Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information.
This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z) - A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry.
This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z) - Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks.
We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)
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.