Ryan Liu

Ryan Liu, Paolo Calafiura, Steven Farrell et al.

We introduce a novel variant of GNN for particle tracking called Hierarchical Graph Neural Network (HGNN). The architecture creates a set of higher-level representations which correspond to tracks and assigns spacepoints to these tracks, allowing disconnected spacepoints to be assigned to the same track, as well as multiple tracks to share the same spacepoint. We propose a novel learnable pooling algorithm called GMPool to generate these higher-level representations called "super-nodes", as well as a new loss function designed for tracking problems and HGNN specifically. On a standard tracking problem, we show that, compared with previous ML-based tracking algorithms, the HGNN has better tracking efficiency performance, better robustness against inefficient input graphs, and better convergence compared with traditional GNNs.

Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Marc Walden, Jason Liu, Shaashwath Sivakumar et al.

We investigate multi-agent deep reinforcement learning and propose two enhancements to the Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG) algorithm. First, we introduce a novel Action Inference mechanism that enables each agent to predict other agents' intended actions, thereby improving the accuracy and stability of its own policy. Second, we apply an importance sampling strategy, using geometric distribution, in the replay buffer to prioritize more recent and informative experiences, which helps mitigate the non-stationarity inherent in multi-agent environments. We evaluate both modifications on the discrete-action Predator-Prey task provided by the PettingZoo library, a flexible Python interface for general multi-agent reinforcement learning benchmarks. Our results indicate that Action Inference is effective in improving learning stability and inter-agent cooperation and that importance sampling using geometric distribution can lead to significant improvements in exploration efficiency over standard MADDPG. Code available at https://github.com/shaashwathsivakumar/MARL_Proj

Ryan Liu, Jiayi Geng, Addison J. Wu et al.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become a widely used strategy for improving large language and multimodal model performance. However, it is still an open question under which settings CoT systematically reduces performance. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of tasks where CoT reduces performance by drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, focusing on six representative tasks from the psychological literature where deliberation hurts performance in humans. In three of these tasks, state-of-the-art models exhibit significant performance drop-offs with CoT (up to 36.3\% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o), while in others, CoT effects are mixed, with positive, neutral, and negative changes. While models and humans do not exhibit perfectly parallel cognitive processes, considering cases where thinking has negative consequences for humans helps identify settings where it negatively impacts models. By connecting the literature on human verbal thinking and deliberation with evaluations of CoT, we offer a perspective for understanding the impact of inference-time reasoning.

Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu et al.

Many scientific conferences employ a two-phase paper review process, where some papers are assigned additional reviewers after the initial reviews are submitted. Many conferences also design and run experiments on their paper review process, where some papers are assigned reviewers who provide reviews under an experimental condition. In this paper, we consider the question: how should reviewers be divided between phases or conditions in order to maximize total assignment similarity? We make several contributions towards answering this question. First, we prove that when the set of papers requiring additional review is unknown, a simplified variant of this problem is NP-hard. Second, we empirically show that across several datasets pertaining to real conference data, dividing reviewers between phases/conditions uniformly at random allows an assignment that is nearly as good as the oracle optimal assignment. This uniformly random choice is practical for both the two-phase and conference experiment design settings. Third, we provide explanations of this phenomenon by providing theoretical bounds on the suboptimality of this random strategy under certain natural conditions. From these easily-interpretable conditions, we provide actionable insights to conference program chairs about whether a random reviewer split is suitable for their conference.