Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh

Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh et al.

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

Chung-Yu Wang, Alireza DaghighFarsoodeh, Hung Viet Pham

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in software engineering tasks. However, improving their accuracy in generating correct and reliable code remains challenging. Numerous prompt engineering techniques (PETs) have been developed to address this, but no single approach is universally optimal. Selecting the right PET for each query is difficult for two primary reasons: (1) interactive prompting techniques may not consistently deliver the expected benefits, especially for simpler queries, and (2) current automated prompt engineering methods lack adaptability and fail to fully utilize multi-stage responses. To overcome these challenges, we propose PET-Select, a PET-agnostic selection model that uses code complexity as a proxy to classify queries and select the most appropriate PET. By incorporating contrastive learning, PET-Select effectively distinguishes between simple and complex problems, allowing it to choose PETs that are best suited for each query's complexity level. Our evaluations on the MBPP and HumanEval benchmarks using GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4o show up to a 1.9% improvement in pass@1 accuracy, along with a 74.8% reduction in token usage. Additionally, we provide both quantitative and qualitative results to demonstrate how PET-Select effectively selects the most appropriate techniques for each code generation query, further showcasing its efficiency in optimizing PET selection.

Chung-Yu Wang, Alireza DaghighFarsoodeh, Hung Viet Pham

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities across various tasks, leveraging advanced reasoning. Yet, they struggle with task-oriented prompts due to a lack of specific prior knowledge of the task answers. The current state-of-the-art approach, PAL, utilizes code generation to address this issue. However, PAL depends on manually crafted prompt templates and examples while still producing inaccurate results. In this work, we present TITAN-a novel strategy designed to enhance LLMs' performance on task-oriented prompts. TITAN achieves this by generating scripts using a universal approach and zero-shot learning. Unlike existing methods, TITAN eliminates the need for detailed task-specific instructions and extensive manual efforts. TITAN enhances LLMs' performance on various tasks by utilizing their analytical and code-generation capabilities in a streamlined process. TITAN employs two key techniques: (1) step-back prompting to extract the task's input specifications and (2) chain-of-thought prompting to identify required procedural steps. This information is used to improve the LLMs' code-generation process. TITAN further refines the generated script through post-processing and the script is executed to retrieve the final answer. Our comprehensive evaluation demonstrates TITAN's effectiveness in a diverse set of tasks. On average, TITAN outperforms the state-of-the-art zero-shot approach by 7.6% and 3.9% when paired with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Overall, without human annotation, TITAN achieves state-of-the-art performance in 8 out of 11 cases while only marginally losing to few-shot approaches (which needed human intervention) on three occasions by small margins. This work represents a significant advancement in addressing task-oriented prompts, offering a novel solution for effectively utilizing LLMs in everyday life tasks.

Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh, Chung-Yu Wang, Hamed Taherkhani et al.

Deep learning (DL) has revolutionized areas such as computer vision, natural language processing, and more. However, developing DL systems is challenging due to the complexity of DL workflows. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT, Claude, Llama, Mistral, etc., have emerged as promising tools to assist in DL code generation, offering potential solutions to these challenges. Despite this, existing benchmarks such as DS-1000 are limited, as they primarily focus on small DL code snippets related to pre/post-processing tasks and lack a comprehensive coverage of the full DL pipeline, including different DL phases and input data types. To address this, we introduce DeepBench, a novel benchmark dataset designed for function-level DL code generation. DeepBench categorizes DL problems based on three key aspects: phases such as pre-processing, model construction, and training; tasks, including classification, regression, and recommendation; and input data types such as tabular, image, and text. GPT-4o -- the state-of-the-art LLM -- achieved 31% accuracy on DeepBench, significantly lower than its 60% on DS-1000. We observed similar difficulty for other LLMs (e.g., 28% vs. 54% for Claude, 21% vs. 41% for LLaMA, and 15% vs. 20% for Mistral). This result underscores DeepBench's greater complexity. We also construct a taxonomy of issues and bugs found in LLM-generated DL code, which highlights the distinct challenges that LLMs face when generating DL code compared to general code. Furthermore, our analysis also reveals substantial performance variations across categories, with differences of up to 7% among phases and 37% among tasks. These disparities suggest that DeepBench offers valuable insights into the LLMs' performance and areas for potential improvement in the DL domain.