Good Idea or Not, Representation of LLM Could Tell

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13712v1
• Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 02:07:22 GMT
• Title: Good Idea or Not, Representation of LLM Could Tell
• Authors: Yi Xu, Bo Xue, Shuqian Sheng, Cheng Deng, Jiaxin Ding, Zanwei Shen, Luoyi Fu, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 86.36317971482755
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In the ever-expanding landscape of academic research, the proliferation of ideas presents a significant challenge for researchers: discerning valuable ideas from the less impactful ones. The ability to efficiently evaluate the potential of these ideas is crucial for the advancement of science and paper review. In this work, we focus on idea assessment, which aims to leverage the knowledge of large language models to assess the merit of scientific ideas. First, we investigate existing text evaluation research and define the problem of quantitative evaluation of ideas. Second, we curate and 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. Third, we establish a framework for quantifying the value of ideas by employing representations in a specific layer of large language models. Experimental results show that the scores predicted by our method are relatively consistent with those of humans. Our findings suggest that the representations of large language models hold more potential in quantifying the value of ideas than their generative outputs, demonstrating a promising avenue for automating the idea assessment process.

Related papers

• IdeaBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Research Idea Generation [19.66218274796796]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how people interact with artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We propose IdeaBench, a benchmark system that includes a comprehensive dataset and an evaluation framework. Our dataset comprises titles and abstracts from a diverse range of influential papers, along with their referenced works. Our evaluation framework is a two-stage process: first, using GPT-4o to rank ideas based on user-specified quality indicators such as novelty and feasibility, enabling scalable personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T17:04:59Z)
• Optimizing the role of human evaluation in LLM-based spoken document summarization systems [0.0]
  We propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content. We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T18:37:14Z)
• A Novel Mathematical Framework for Objective Characterization of Ideas through Vector Embeddings in LLM [0.0]
  This study introduces a comprehensive mathematical framework for automated analysis to objectively evaluate the plethora of ideas generated by CAI systems and/or humans. By converting the ideas into higher dimensional vectors and quantitatively measuring the diversity between them using tools such as UMAP, DBSCAN and PCA, the proposed method provides a reliable and objective way of selecting the most promising ideas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T19:10:29Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is a large language model-powered research idea writing agent. It generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• 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)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Evaluation and Experimental Design for Visual Text Analytics: Position Paper [24.586485898038312]
  In this paper, we focus on the issues of evaluating visual text analytics approaches. We identify four key groups of challenges for evaluating visual text analytics approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T11:47:37Z)

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.