Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03417v2
• Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 22:06:08 GMT
• Title: Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment
• Authors: Alexander Goldberg, Ihsan Ullah, Thanh Gia Hieu Khuong, Benedictus Kent Rachmat, Zhen Xu, Isabelle Guyon, Nihar B. Shah,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
• Score: 59.09144776166979
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards. We conduct an experiment at the 2024 Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, where 234 papers were voluntarily submitted to an "LLM-based Checklist Assistant." This assistant validates whether papers adhere to the author checklist used by NeurIPS, which includes questions to ensure compliance with research and manuscript preparation standards. Evaluation of the assistant by NeurIPS paper authors suggests that the LLM-based assistant was generally helpful in verifying checklist completion. In post-usage surveys, over 70% of authors found the assistant useful, and 70% indicate that they would revise their papers or checklist responses based on its feedback. While causal attribution to the assistant is not definitive, qualitative evidence suggests that the LLM contributed to improving some submissions. Survey responses and analysis of re-submissions indicate that authors made substantive revisions to their submissions in response to specific feedback from the LLM. The experiment also highlights common issues with LLMs: inaccuracy (20/52) and excessive strictness (14/52) were the most frequent issues flagged by authors. We also conduct experiments to understand potential gaming of the system, which reveal that the assistant could be manipulated to enhance scores through fabricated justifications, highlighting potential vulnerabilities of automated review tools.

Related papers

• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• From Test-Taking to Test-Making: Examining LLM Authoring of Commonsense Assessment Items [0.18416014644193068]
  We consider LLMs as authors of commonsense assessment items. We prompt LLMs to generate items in the style of a prominent benchmark for commonsense reasoning. We find that LLMs that succeed in answering the original COPA benchmark are also more successful in authoring their own items.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T22:42:23Z)
• Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
  We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs [29.295135832861522]
  Self-correction is an approach to improving responses from large language models (LLMs) by refining the responses using LLMs during inference. Prior work has proposed various self-correction frameworks using different sources of feedback, including self-evaluation and external feedback. We critically survey broad papers and discuss the conditions required for successful self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T13:05:46Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• KIWI: A Dataset of Knowledge-Intensive Writing Instructions for Answering Research Questions [63.307317584926146]
  Large language models (LLMs) adapted to follow user instructions are now widely deployed as conversational agents. In this work, we examine one increasingly common instruction-following task: providing writing assistance to compose a long-form answer. We construct KIWI, a dataset of knowledge-intensive writing instructions in the scientific domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T17:16:44Z)

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.