Large Language Models Penetration in Scholarly Writing and Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11193v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:37:34 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Penetration in Scholarly Writing and Peer Review
• Authors: Li Zhou, Ruijie Zhang, Xunlian Dai, Daniel Hershcovich, Haizhou Li,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the penetration of Large Language Models across academic perspectives and dimensions. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of textttLLMetrica, revealing the increasing role of LLMs in scholarly processes. These findings emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in LLM usage to maintain academic credibility.
• Score: 43.600778691549706
• License:
• Abstract: While the widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) brings convenience, it also raises concerns about the credibility of academic research and scholarly processes. To better understand these dynamics, we evaluate the penetration of LLMs across academic workflows from multiple perspectives and dimensions, providing compelling evidence of their growing influence. We propose a framework with two components: \texttt{ScholarLens}, a curated dataset of human- and LLM-generated content across scholarly writing and peer review for multi-perspective evaluation, and \texttt{LLMetrica}, a tool for assessing LLM penetration using rule-based metrics and model-based detectors for multi-dimensional evaluation. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of \texttt{LLMetrica}, revealing the increasing role of LLMs in scholarly processes. These findings emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in LLM usage to maintain academic credibility.

Related papers

• Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
  This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation. Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs. Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z)
• From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management [6.70908766695241]
  This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T20:35:10Z)
• Evaluating Linguistic Capabilities of Multimodal LLMs in the Lens of Few-Shot Learning [15.919493497867567]
  This study aims to evaluate the performance of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on the VALSE benchmark. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of state-of-the-art MLLMs, varying in model size and pretraining datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T11:26:47Z)
• 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)
• Unveiling LLM Evaluation Focused on Metrics: Challenges and Solutions [2.5179515260542544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention across academia and industry for their versatile applications in text generation, question answering, and text summarization. To quantify the performance, it's crucial to have a comprehensive grasp of existing metrics. This paper offers a comprehensive exploration of LLM evaluation from a metrics perspective, providing insights into the selection and interpretation of metrics currently in use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T03:54:00Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• From Understanding to Utilization: A Survey on Explainability for Large Language Models [27.295767173801426]
  This survey underscores the imperative for increased explainability in Large Language Models (LLMs) Our focus is primarily on pre-trained Transformer-based LLMs, which pose distinctive interpretability challenges due to their scale and complexity. When considering the utilization of explainability, we explore several compelling methods that concentrate on model editing, control generation, and model enhancement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T16:09:53Z)
• LLM-in-the-loop: Leveraging Large Language Model for Thematic Analysis [18.775126929754833]
  Thematic analysis (TA) has been widely used for analyzing qualitative data in many disciplines and fields. Human coders develop and deepen their data interpretation and coding over multiple iterations, making TA labor-intensive and time-consuming. We propose a human-LLM collaboration framework (i.e., LLM-in-the-loop) to conduct TA with in-context learning (ICL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:05:59Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.