Jie Fu, Tianlin Liu, Fei Wang, Tao Li, Chen Xing, Fei Liu, Rui Zhang, Philip Yu, Meng Fang, Zihao Wang, Ruohao Guo, Wenpeng Yin, and 28 more
We have not lifted any functions out of this paper's repositories yet, so there is nothing we have run. If it links a repository, it is listed below.
Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.
Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, we present a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment. 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 expertisedemanding, 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. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/jiangshdd/ReviewCritique.
The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:
get_harvested_code_for_paper("2406.16253")
get_code_for_paper("2406.16253")
have("2406.16253")
Connect an agent — have() is free.