What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

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.

Accelerating Speculative Decoding using Dynamic Speculation Length

Speculative decoding is a promising method for reducing the inference latency of large language models. The effectiveness of the method depends on the speculation length (SL) - the number of tokens generated by the draft model at each iteration. The vast majority of speculative decoding approaches use the same SL for all iterations. In this work, we show that this practice is suboptimal. We introduce DISCO, a DynamIc SpeCulation length Optimization method that uses a classifier to dynamically adjust the SL at each iteration, while provably preserving the decoding quality. Experiments with four benchmarks demonstrate average speedup gains of 10.3% relative to our best baselines.

Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit label bias -- an undesirable preference toward predicting certain answers over others. Still, detecting and measuring this bias reliably and at scale has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions, conducting a comprehensive investigation across 279 classification tasks and ten LLMs. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts, as well as highlights the importance of outcomes-based evaluation metrics, which were not previously used in this regard. We further propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting, which outperforms recent calibration approaches for both improving performance and mitigating label bias. Our results emphasize that label bias in the predictions of LLMs remains a barrier to their reliability.

The Larger the Better? Improved LLM Code-Generation via Budget Reallocation

It is a common belief that large language models (LLMs) are better than smaller-sized ones. However, larger models also require significantly more time and compute during inference. This begs the question: what happens when both models operate under the same budget? (e.g., compute, run-time). To address this question, we analyze code generation LLMs of various sizes and make comparisons such as running a 70B model once vs. generating five outputs from a 13B model and selecting one. Our findings reveal that, in a standard unit-test setup, the repeated use of smaller models can yield consistent improvements, with gains of up to 15% across five tasks. On the other hand, in scenarios where unit-tests are unavailable, a ranking-based selection of candidates from the smaller model falls short of the performance of a single output from larger ones. Our results highlight the potential of using smaller models instead of larger ones, and the importance of studying approaches for ranking LLM outputs.

Transformers are Multi-State RNNs

Transformers are considered conceptually different compared to the previous generation of state-of-the-art NLP models - recurrent neural networks (RNNs). In this work, we demonstrate that decoder-only transformers can in fact be conceptualized as infinite multi-state RNNs - an RNN variant with unlimited hidden state size. We further show that pretrained transformers can be converted into $\textit{finite}$ multi-state RNNs by fixing the size of their hidden state. We observe that several existing transformers cache compression techniques can be framed as such conversion policies, and introduce a novel policy, TOVA, which is simpler compared to these policies. Our experiments with several long range tasks indicate that TOVA outperforms all other baseline policies, while being nearly on par with the full (infinite) model, and using in some cases only $\frac{1}{8}$ of the original cache size. Our results indicate that transformer decoder LLMs often behave in practice as RNNs. They also lay out the option of mitigating one of their most painful computational bottlenecks - the size of their cache memory. We publicly release our code at https://github.com/schwartz-lab-NLP/TOVA.

Read, Look or Listen? What's Needed for Solving a Multimodal Dataset

The prevalence of large-scale multimodal datasets presents unique challenges in assessing dataset quality. We propose a two-step method to analyze multimodal datasets, which leverages a small seed of human annotation to map each multimodal instance to the modalities required to process it. Our method sheds light on the importance of different modalities in datasets, as well as the relationship between them. We apply our approach to TVQA, a video question-answering dataset, and discover that most questions can be answered using a single modality, without a substantial bias towards any specific modality. Moreover, we find that more than 70% of the questions are solvable using several different single-modality strategies, e.g., by either looking at the video or listening to the audio, highlighting the limited integration of multiple modalities in TVQA. We leverage our annotation and analyze the MERLOT Reserve, finding that it struggles with image-based questions compared to text and audio, but also with auditory speaker identification. Based on our observations, we introduce a new test set that necessitates multiple modalities, observing a dramatic drop in model performance. Our methodology provides valuable insights into multimodal datasets and highlights the need for the development of more robust models.

Surveying (Dis)Parities and Concerns of Compute Hungry NLP Research

Many recent improvements in NLP stem from the development and use of large pre-trained language models (PLMs) with billions of parameters. Large model sizes makes computational cost one of the main limiting factors for training and evaluating such models; and has raised severe concerns about the sustainability, reproducibility, and inclusiveness for researching PLMs. These concerns are often based on personal experiences and observations. However, there had not been any large-scale surveys that investigate them. In this work, we provide a first attempt to quantify these concerns regarding three topics, namely, environmental impact, equity, and impact on peer reviewing. By conducting a survey with 312 participants from the NLP community, we capture existing (dis)parities between different and within groups with respect to seniority, academia, and industry; and their impact on the peer reviewing process. For each topic, we provide an analysis and devise recommendations to mitigate found disparities, some of which already successfully implemented. Finally, we discuss additional concerns raised by many participants in free-text responses.

Morphosyntactic probing of multilingual BERT models

We introduce an extensive dataset for multilingual probing of morphological information in language models (247 tasks across 42 languages from 10 families), each consisting of a sentence with a target word and a morphological tag as the desired label, derived from the Universal Dependencies treebanks. We find that pre-trained Transformer models (mBERT and XLM-RoBERTa) learn features that attain strong performance across these tasks. We then apply two methods to locate, for each probing task, where the disambiguating information resides in the input. The first is a new perturbation method that masks various parts of context; the second is the classical method of Shapley values. The most intriguing finding that emerges is a strong tendency for the preceding context to hold more information relevant to the prediction than the following context.

Finding the SWEET Spot: Analysis and Improvement of Adaptive Inference in Low Resource Settings

Adaptive inference is a simple method for reducing inference costs. The method works by maintaining multiple classifiers of different capacities, and allocating resources to each test instance according to its difficulty. In this work, we compare the two main approaches for adaptive inference, Early-Exit and Multi-Model, when training data is limited. First, we observe that for models with the same architecture and size, individual Multi-Model classifiers outperform their Early-Exit counterparts by an average of 2.3%. We show that this gap is caused by Early-Exit classifiers sharing model parameters during training, resulting in conflicting gradient updates of model weights. We find that despite this gap, Early-Exit still provides a better speed-accuracy trade-off due to the overhead of the Multi-Model approach. To address these issues, we propose SWEET (Separating Weights in Early Exit Transformers), an Early-Exit fine-tuning method that assigns each classifier its own set of unique model weights, not updated by other classifiers. We compare SWEET's speed-accuracy curve to standard Early-Exit and Multi-Model baselines and find that it outperforms both methods at fast speeds while maintaining comparable scores to Early-Exit at slow speeds. Moreover, SWEET individual classifiers outperform Early-Exit ones by 1.1% on average. SWEET enjoys the benefits of both methods, paving the way for further reduction of inference costs in NLP.

Fighting Bias with Bias: Promoting Model Robustness by Amplifying Dataset Biases

NLP models often rely on superficial cues known as dataset biases to achieve impressive performance, and can fail on examples where these biases do not hold. Recent work sought to develop robust, unbiased models by filtering biased examples from training sets. In this work, we argue that such filtering can obscure the true capabilities of models to overcome biases, which might never be removed in full from the dataset. We suggest that in order to drive the development of models robust to subtle biases, dataset biases should be amplified in the training set. We introduce an evaluation framework defined by a bias-amplified training set and an anti-biased test set, both automatically extracted from existing datasets. Experiments across three notions of bias, four datasets and two models show that our framework is substantially more challenging for models than the original data splits, and even more challenging than hand-crafted challenge sets. Our evaluation framework can use any existing dataset, even those considered obsolete, to test model robustness. We hope our work will guide the development of robust models that do not rely on superficial biases and correlations. To this end, we publicly release our code and data.