Danish Pruthi

Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen et al.

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

Navreet Kaur, Monojit Choudhury, Danish Pruthi · uw

As corporations rush to integrate large language models (LLMs) to their search offerings, it is critical that they provide factually accurate information that is robust to any presuppositions that a user may express. In this work, we introduce UPHILL, a dataset consisting of health-related queries with varying degrees of presuppositions. Using UPHILL, we evaluate the factual accuracy and consistency of InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and BingChat models. We find that while model responses rarely disagree with true health claims (posed as questions), they often fail to challenge false claims: responses from InstructGPT agree with 32% of the false claims, ChatGPT 26% and BingChat 23%. As we increase the extent of presupposition in input queries, the responses from InstructGPT and ChatGPT agree with the claim considerably more often, regardless of its veracity. Responses from BingChat, which rely on retrieved webpages, are not as susceptible. Given the moderate factual accuracy, and the inability of models to consistently correct false assumptions, our work calls for a careful assessment of current LLMs for use in high-stakes scenarios.

Tarun Gupta, Danish Pruthi

Automating scientific research is considered the final frontier of science. Recently, several papers claim autonomous research agents can generate novel research ideas. Amidst the prevailing optimism, we document a critical concern: a considerable fraction of such research documents are smartly plagiarized. Unlike past efforts where experts evaluate the novelty and feasibility of research ideas, we request $13$ experts to operate under a different situational logic: to identify similarities between LLM-generated research documents and existing work. Concerningly, the experts identify $24\%$ of the $50$ evaluated research documents to be either paraphrased (with one-to-one methodological mapping), or significantly borrowed from existing work. These reported instances are cross-verified by authors of the source papers. The remaining $76\%$ of documents show varying degrees of similarity with existing work, with only a small fraction appearing completely novel. Problematically, these LLM-generated research documents do not acknowledge original sources, and bypass inbuilt plagiarism detectors. Lastly, through controlled experiments we show that automated plagiarism detectors are inadequate at catching plagiarized ideas from such systems. We recommend a careful assessment of LLM-generated research, and discuss the implications of our findings on academic publishing.

Kirti Bhagat, Shaily Bhatt, Athul Velagapudi et al.

Millions of users across the globe turn to AI chatbots for their creative needs, inviting widespread interest in understanding how they represent diverse cultures. However, evaluating cultural representations in open-ended tasks remains challenging and underexplored. In this work, we present TALES, an evaluation of cultural misrepresentations in LLM-generated stories for diverse Indian cultural identities. First, we develop TALES-Tax, a taxonomy of cultural misrepresentations by collating insights from participants with lived experiences in India through focus groups (N=9) and individual surveys (N=15). Using TALES-Tax, we evaluate 6 models through a large-scale annotation study spanning 2925 annotations from 108 annotators with lived experience and native language proficiency from across 71 regions in India and 14 languages. Concerningly, we find that 88% of the generated stories contain misrepresentations, and such errors are more prevalent in mid- and low-resourced languages and stories based in peri-urban regions in India. We also transform the annotations into TALES-QA, a standalone question bank to evaluate the cultural knowledge of models.