AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews

Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews to increase sample efficiency while reducing bias. In addition to evaluating human and LLM preferences among LLM reviews, we fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We artificially introduce errors into papers and analyze the LLM's responses to identify limitations, use adaptive review questions, meta prompting, role-playing, integrate visual and textual analysis, use venue-specific reviewing materials, and predict human preferences, improving upon the limitations of the traditional review processes. 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. This work develops proof-of-concept LLM reviewing systems that quickly deliver consistent, high-quality reviews and evaluate their quality. We mitigate the risks of misuse, inflated review scores, overconfident ratings, and skewed score distributions by augmenting the LLM with multiple documents, including the review form, reviewer guide, code of ethics and conduct, area chair guidelines, and previous year statistics, by finding which errors and shortcomings of the paper may be detected by automated reviews, and evaluating pairwise reviewer preferences. This work identifies and addresses the limitations of using LLMs as reviewers and evaluators and enhances the quality of the reviewing process.

Exploring the MIT Mathematics and EECS Curriculum Using Large Language Models

We curate a comprehensive dataset of 4,550 questions and solutions from problem sets, midterm exams, and final exams across all MIT Mathematics and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) courses required for obtaining a degree. We evaluate the ability of large language models to fulfill the graduation requirements for any MIT major in Mathematics and EECS. Our results demonstrate that GPT-3.5 successfully solves a third of the entire MIT curriculum, while GPT-4, with prompt engineering, achieves a perfect solve rate on a test set excluding questions based on images. We fine-tune an open-source large language model on this dataset. We employ GPT-4 to automatically grade model responses, providing a detailed performance breakdown by course, question, and answer type. By embedding questions in a low-dimensional space, we explore the relationships between questions, topics, and classes and discover which questions and classes are required for solving other questions and classes through few-shot learning. Our analysis offers valuable insights into course prerequisites and curriculum design, highlighting language models' potential for learning and improving Mathematics and EECS education.

Human Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models on a Multi-Task Benchmark

We provide a new multi-task benchmark for evaluating text-to-image models. We perform a human evaluation comparing the most common open-source (Stable Diffusion) and commercial (DALL-E 2) models. Twenty computer science AI graduate students evaluated the two models, on three tasks, at three difficulty levels, across ten prompts each, providing 3,600 ratings. Text-to-image generation has seen rapid progress to the point that many recent models have demonstrated their ability to create realistic high-resolution images for various prompts. However, current text-to-image methods and the broader body of research in vision-language understanding still struggle with intricate text prompts that contain many objects with multiple attributes and relationships. We introduce a new text-to-image benchmark that contains a suite of thirty-two tasks over multiple applications that capture a model's ability to handle different features of a text prompt. For example, asking a model to generate a varying number of the same object to measure its ability to count or providing a text prompt with several objects that each have a different attribute to identify its ability to match objects and attributes correctly. Rather than subjectively evaluating text-to-image results on a set of prompts, our new multi-task benchmark consists of challenge tasks at three difficulty levels (easy, medium, and hard) and human ratings for each generated image.