Whose LLM is it Anyway? Linguistic Comparison and LLM Attribution for GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and Bard

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating text that is similar to or surpasses human quality. However, it is unclear whether LLMs tend to exhibit distinctive linguistic styles akin to how human authors do. Through a comprehensive linguistic analysis, we compare the vocabulary, Part-Of-Speech (POS) distribution, dependency distribution, and sentiment of texts generated by three of the most popular LLMS today (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard) to diverse inputs. The results point to significant linguistic variations which, in turn, enable us to attribute a given text to its LLM origin with a favorable 88\% accuracy using a simple off-the-shelf classification model. Theoretical and practical implications of this intriguing finding are discussed.

Detecting LLM-Assisted Writing in Scientific Communication: Are We There Yet?

Large Language Models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, have significantly reshaped text generation, particularly in the realm of writing assistance. While ethical considerations underscore the importance of transparently acknowledging LLM use, especially in scientific communication, genuine acknowledgment remains infrequent. A potential avenue to encourage accurate acknowledging of LLM-assisted writing involves employing automated detectors. Our evaluation of four cutting-edge LLM-generated text detectors reveals their suboptimal performance compared to a simple ad-hoc detector designed to identify abrupt writing style changes around the time of LLM proliferation. We contend that the development of specialized detectors exclusively dedicated to LLM-assisted writing detection is necessary. Such detectors could play a crucial role in fostering more authentic recognition of LLM involvement in scientific communication, addressing the current challenges in acknowledgment practices.

The Scientometrics and Reciprocality Underlying Co-Authorship Panels in Google Scholar Profiles

Online academic profiles are used by scholars to reflect a desired image to their online audience. In Google Scholar, scholars can select a subset of co-authors for presentation in a central location on their profile using a social feature called the Co-authroship panel. In this work, we examine whether scientometrics and reciprocality can explain the observed selections. To this end, we scrape and thoroughly analyze a novel set of 120,000 Google Scholar profiles, ranging across four disciplines and various academic institutions. Our results suggest that scholars tend to favor co-authors with higher scientometrics over others for inclusion in their co-authorship panels. Interestingly, as one's own scientometrics are higher, the tendency to include co-authors with high scientometrics is diminishing. Furthermore, we find that reciprocality is central to explaining scholars' selections.

Mathematical Modeling of BCG-based Bladder Cancer Treatment Using Socio-Demographics

Cancer is one of the most widespread diseases around the world with millions of new patients each year. Bladder cancer is one of the most prevalent types of cancer affecting all individuals alike with no obvious prototypical patient. The current standard treatment for BC follows a routine weekly Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) immunotherapy-based therapy protocol which is applied to all patients alike. The clinical outcomes associated with BCG treatment vary significantly among patients due to the biological and clinical complexity of the interaction between the immune system, treatments, and cancer cells. In this study, we take advantage of the patient's socio-demographics to offer a personalized mathematical model that describes the clinical dynamics associated with BCG-based treatment. To this end, we adopt a well-established BCG treatment model and integrate a machine learning component to temporally adjust and reconfigure key parameters within the model thus promoting its personalization. Using real clinical data, we show that our personalized model favorably compares with the original one in predicting the number of cancer cells at the end of the treatment, with 14.8% improvement, on average.

Optimizing SMS Reminder Campaigns for Pre- and Post-Diagnosis Cancer Check-Ups using Socio-Demographics: An In-Silco Investigation Into Bladder Cancer

Timely pre- and post-diagnosis check-ups are critical for cancer patients, across all cancer types, as these often lead to better outcomes. Several socio-demographic properties have been identified as strongly connected with both cancer's clinical dynamics and (indirectly) with different individual check-up behaviors. Unfortunately, existing check-up policies typically consider only the former association explicitly. In this work, we propose a novel framework, accompanied by a high-resolution computer simulation, to investigate and optimize socio-demographic-based SMS reminder campaigns for cancer check-ups. We instantiate our framework and simulation for the case of bladder cancer, the 10th most prevalent cancer today, using extensive real-world data. Our results indicate that optimizing an SMS reminder campaign based solely on simple socio-demographic features can bring about a statistically significant reduction in mortality rate compared to alternative campaigns by up to 5.8%.

A Computational Model For Individual Scholars' Writing Style Dynamics

A manuscript's writing style is central in determining its readership, influence, and impact. Past research has shown that, in many cases, scholars present a unique writing style that is manifested in their manuscripts. In this work, we report a comprehensive investigation into how scholars' writing styles evolve throughout their careers focusing on their academic relations with their advisors and peers. Our results show that scholars' writing styles tend to stabilize early on in their careers -- roughly their 13th publication. Around the same time, scholars' departures from their advisors' writing styles seem to converge as well. Last, collaborations involving fewer scholars, scholars from the same gender, or from the same field of study seem to bring about greater change in their co-authors' writing styles with younger scholars being especially influenceable.

Economical-Epidemiological Analysis of the Coffee Trees Rust Pandemic

Coffee tree leaf rust is a prevalent botanical disease that causes a worldwide reduction in coffee supply and its quality, leading to immense economic losses. While several pandemic intervention policies (PIPs) for tackling this pandemic are commercially available, they seem to provide only partial epidemiological relief for farmers. In this work, we develop a high-resolution economical-epidemiological model that captures the pandemic's spread in coffee tree farms and its associated economic impact. Through extensive simulations for the case of Colombia, a country that consists mostly of small-size coffee farms and is the second-largest coffee producer in the world, our results show that it is economically impractical to sustain any profit without directly tackling the pandemic. Furthermore, even in the hypothetical case where farmers perfectly know their farm's epidemiological state and the weather in advance, any pandemic-related efforts can only amount to a limited profit of roughly 4% on investment. In the more realistic case, any pandemic-related efforts are expected to result in economic losses, indicating that major disturbances in the coffee market are anticipated.

Towards Outcome-Driven Patient Subgroups: A Machine Learning Analysis Across Six Depression Treatment Studies

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous condition; multiple underlying neurobiological substrates could be associated with treatment response variability. Understanding the sources of this variability and predicting outcomes has been elusive. Machine learning has shown promise in predicting treatment response in MDD, but one limitation has been the lack of clinical interpretability of machine learning models. We analyzed data from six clinical trials of pharmacological treatment for depression (total n = 5438) using the Differential Prototypes Neural Network (DPNN), a neural network model that derives patient prototypes which can be used to derive treatment-relevant patient clusters while learning to generate probabilities for differential treatment response. A model classifying remission and outputting individual remission probabilities for five first-line monotherapies and three combination treatments was trained using clinical and demographic data. Model validity and clinical utility were measured based on area under the curve (AUC) and expected improvement in sample remission rate with model-guided treatment, respectively. Post-hoc analyses yielded clusters (subgroups) based on patient prototypes learned during training. Prototypes were evaluated for interpretability by assessing differences in feature distributions and treatment-specific outcomes. A 3-prototype model achieved an AUC of 0.66 and an expected absolute improvement in population remission rate compared to the sample remission rate. We identified three treatment-relevant patient clusters which were clinically interpretable. It is possible to produce novel treatment-relevant patient profiles using machine learning models; doing so may improve precision medicine for depression. Note: This model is not currently the subject of any active clinical trials and is not intended for clinical use.

Authorship Conflicts in Academia: an International Cross-Discipline Survey

Collaboration among scholars has emerged as a significant characteristic of contemporary science. As a result, the number of authors listed in publications continues to rise steadily. Unfortunately, determining the authors to be included in the byline and their respective order entails multiple difficulties which often lead to conflicts. Despite the large volume of literature about conflicts in academia, it remains unclear how exactly it is distributed over the main socio-demographic properties, as well as the different types of interactions academics experience. To address this gap, we conducted an international and cross-disciplinary survey answered by 752 academics from 41 fields of research and 93 countries that statistically well-represent the overall academic workforce. Our findings are concerning and suggest that authorship credit conflicts arise very early in one's academic career, even at the level of Master and Ph.D., and become increasingly common over time.

What Should We Optimize in Participatory Budgeting? An Experimental Study

Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a process in which voters decide how to allocate a common budget; most commonly it is done by ordinary people -- in particular, residents of some municipality -- to decide on a fraction of the municipal budget. From a social choice perspective, existing research on PB focuses almost exclusively on designing computationally-efficient aggregation methods that satisfy certain axiomatic properties deemed "desirable" by the research community. Our work complements this line of research through a user study (N = 215) involving several experiments aimed at identifying what potential voters (i.e., non-experts) deem fair or desirable in simple PB settings. Our results show that some modern PB aggregation techniques greatly differ from users' expectations, while other, more standard approaches, provide more aligned results. We also identify a few possible discrepancies between what non-experts consider \say{desirable} and how they perceive the notion of "fairness" in the PB context. Taken jointly, our results can be used to help the research community identify appropriate PB aggregation methods to use in practice.