Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment

Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards. We conduct an experiment at the 2024 Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, where 234 papers were voluntarily submitted to an "LLM-based Checklist Assistant." This assistant validates whether papers adhere to the author checklist used by NeurIPS, which includes questions to ensure compliance with research and manuscript preparation standards. Evaluation of the assistant by NeurIPS paper authors suggests that the LLM-based assistant was generally helpful in verifying checklist completion. In post-usage surveys, over 70% of authors found the assistant useful, and 70% indicate that they would revise their papers or checklist responses based on its feedback. While causal attribution to the assistant is not definitive, qualitative evidence suggests that the LLM contributed to improving some submissions. Survey responses and analysis of re-submissions indicate that authors made substantive revisions to their submissions in response to specific feedback from the LLM. The experiment also highlights common issues with LLMs: inaccuracy (20/52) and excessive strictness (14/52) were the most frequent issues flagged by authors. We also conduct experiments to understand potential gaming of the system, which reveal that the assistant could be manipulated to enhance scores through fabricated justifications, highlighting potential vulnerabilities of automated review tools.

RelevAI-Reviewer: A Benchmark on AI Reviewers for Survey Paper Relevance

Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs), have significantly enhanced text analysis capabilities. This technological evolution offers considerable promise for automating the review of scientific papers, a task traditionally managed through peer review by fellow researchers. Despite its critical role in maintaining research quality, the conventional peer-review process is often slow and subject to biases, potentially impeding the swift propagation of scientific knowledge. In this paper, we propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem, aimed at assessing the relevance of a paper in relation to a specified prompt, analogous to a "call for papers". To address this, we introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. The objective is to develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one. We explore various baseline approaches, including traditional ML classifiers like Support Vector Machine (SVM) and advanced language models such as BERT. Preliminary findings indicate that the BERT-based end-to-end classifier surpasses other conventional ML methods in performance. We present this problem as a public challenge to foster engagement and interest in this area of research.

Auto-survey Challenge

We present a novel platform for evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously compose and critique survey papers spanning a vast array of disciplines including sciences, humanities, education, and law. Within this framework, AI systems undertake a simulated peer-review mechanism akin to traditional scholarly journals, with human organizers serving in an editorial oversight capacity. Within this framework, we organized a competition for the AutoML conference 2023. Entrants are tasked with presenting stand-alone models adept at authoring articles from designated prompts and subsequently appraising them. Assessment criteria include clarity, reference appropriateness, accountability, and the substantive value of the content. This paper presents the design of the competition, including the implementation baseline submissions and methods of evaluation.