LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing
Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao, Zhongfen Deng, Shuaiqi Liu, Renze Lou, Henry Peng Zou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit
Abstract
Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent 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 expertise-demanding, 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 as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs 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.
BibTeX
@inproceedings{du-etal-2024-llms,
title = "{LLM}s Assist {NLP} Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing",
author = "Du, Jiangshu and
Wang, Yibo and
Zhao, Wenting and
Deng, Zhongfen and
Liu, Shuaiqi and
Lou, Renze and
Zou, Henry Peng and
Narayanan Venkit, Pranav and
Zhang, Nan and
Srinath, Mukund and
Zhang, Haoran Ranran and
Gupta, Vipul and
Li, Yinghui and
Li, Tao and
Wang, Fei and
Liu, Qin and
Liu, Tianlin and
Gao, Pengzhi and
Xia, Congying and
Xing, Chen and
Jiayang, Cheng and
Wang, Zhaowei and
Su, Ying and
Shah, Raj Sanjay and
Guo, Ruohao and
Gu, Jing and
Li, Haoran and
Wei, Kangda and
Wang, Zihao and
Cheng, Lu and
Ranathunga, Surangika and
Fang, Meng and
Fu, Jie and
Liu, Fei and
Huang, Ruihong and
Blanco, Eduardo and
Cao, Yixin and
Zhang, Rui and
Yu, Philip S. and
Yin, Wenpeng",
editor = "Al-Onaizan, Yaser and
Bansal, Mohit and
Chen, Yun-Nung",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
month = nov,
year = "2024",
address = "Miami, Florida, USA",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.292/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.292",
pages = "5081--5099"
}