Automatically Evaluating the Paper Reviewing Capability of Large Language Models

Peer review is essential for scientific progress, but it faces challenges such as reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for providing assistance, research has reported significant limitations in the reviews they generate. While the insights are valuable, conducting the analysis is challenging due to the considerable time and effort required, especially given the rapid pace of LLM developments. To address the challenge, we developed an automatic evaluation pipeline to assess the LLMs' paper review capability by comparing them with expert-generated reviews. By constructing a dataset consisting of 676 OpenReview papers, we examined the agreement between LLMs and experts in their strength and weakness identifications. The results showed that LLMs lack balanced perspectives, significantly overlook novelty assessment when criticizing, and produce poor acceptance decisions. Our automated pipeline enables a scalable evaluation of LLMs' paper review capability over time.

Learning to Explore and Select for Coverage-Conditioned Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Interactions with billion-scale large language models typically yield long-form responses due to their extensive parametric capacities, along with retrieval-augmented features. While detailed responses provide insightful viewpoint of a specific subject, they frequently generate redundant and less engaging content that does not meet user interests. In this work, we focus on the role of query outlining (i.e., selected sequence of queries) in scenarios that users request a specific range of information, namely coverage-conditioned ($C^2$) scenarios. For simulating $C^2$ scenarios, we construct QTree, 10K sets of information-seeking queries decomposed with various perspectives on certain topics. By utilizing QTree, we train QPlanner, a 7B language model generating customized query outlines that follow coverage-conditioned queries. We analyze the effectiveness of generated outlines through automatic and human evaluation, targeting on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Moreover, the experimental results demonstrate that QPlanner with alignment training can further provide outlines satisfying diverse user interests. Our resources are available at https://github.com/youngerous/qtree.

The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models

As language models (LMs) become capable of handling a wide range of tasks, their evaluation is becoming as challenging as their development. Most generation benchmarks currently assess LMs using abstract evaluation criteria like helpfulness and harmlessness, which often lack the flexibility and granularity of human assessment. Additionally, these benchmarks tend to focus disproportionately on specific capabilities such as instruction following, leading to coverage bias. To overcome these limitations, we introduce the BiGGen Bench, a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation. We apply this benchmark to assess 103 frontier LMs using five evaluator LMs. Our code, data, and evaluation results are all publicly available at https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-eval/tree/main/BiGGen-Bench.

Discursive objection strategies in online comments: Developing a classification schema and validating its training

Most Americans agree that misinformation, hate speech and harassment are harmful and inadequately curbed on social media through current moderation practices. In this paper, we aim to understand the discursive strategies employed by people in response to harmful speech in news comments. We conducted a content analysis of more than 6500 comment replies to trending news videos on YouTube and Twitter and identified seven distinct discursive objection strategies (Study 1). We examined the frequency of each strategy's occurrence from the 6500 comment replies, as well as from a second sample of 2004 replies (Study 2). Together, these studies show that people deploy a diversity of discursive strategies when objecting to speech, and reputational attacks are the most common. The resulting classification scheme accounts for different theoretical approaches for expressing objections and offers a comprehensive perspective on grassroots efforts aimed at stopping offensive or problematic speech on campus.