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.

How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity?

In-context learning (ICL) has become one of the most popular learning paradigms. While there is a growing body of literature focusing on prompt engineering, there is a lack of systematic analysis comparing the effects of prompts across different models and tasks. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive prompt analysis based on the sensitivity of a function. Our analysis reveals that sensitivity is an unsupervised proxy for model performance, as it exhibits a strong negative correlation with accuracy. We use gradient-based saliency scores to empirically demonstrate how different prompts affect the relevance of input tokens to the output, resulting in different levels of sensitivity. Furthermore, we introduce sensitivity-aware decoding which incorporates sensitivity estimation as a penalty term in the standard greedy decoding. We show that this approach is particularly helpful when information in the input is scarce. Our work provides a fresh perspective on the analysis of prompts, and contributes to a better understanding of the mechanism of ICL.

Measuring Pointwise $\mathcal{V}$-Usable Information In-Context-ly

In-context learning (ICL) is a new learning paradigm that has gained popularity along with the development of large language models. In this work, we adapt a recently proposed hardness metric, pointwise $\mathcal{V}$-usable information (PVI), to an in-context version (in-context PVI). Compared to the original PVI, in-context PVI is more efficient in that it requires only a few exemplars and does not require fine-tuning. We conducted a comprehensive empirical analysis to evaluate the reliability of in-context PVI. Our findings indicate that in-context PVI estimates exhibit similar characteristics to the original PVI. Specific to the in-context setting, we show that in-context PVI estimates remain consistent across different exemplar selections and numbers of shots. The variance of in-context PVI estimates across different exemplar selections is insignificant, which suggests that in-context PVI are stable. Furthermore, we demonstrate how in-context PVI can be employed to identify challenging instances. Our work highlights the potential of in-context PVI and provides new insights into the capabilities of ICL.

Are Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models just In-Context Learning?

Large language models have exhibited emergent abilities, demonstrating exceptional performance across diverse tasks for which they were not explicitly trained, including those that require complex reasoning abilities. The emergence of such abilities carries profound implications for the future direction of research in NLP, especially as the deployment of such models becomes more prevalent. However, one key challenge is that the evaluation of these abilities is often confounded by competencies that arise in models through alternative prompting techniques, such as in-context learning and instruction following, which also emerge as the models are scaled up. In this study, we provide the first comprehensive examination of these emergent abilities while accounting for various potentially biasing factors that can influence the evaluation of models. We conduct rigorous tests on a set of 18 models, encompassing a parameter range from 60 million to 175 billion parameters, across a comprehensive set of 22 tasks. Through an extensive series of over 1,000 experiments, we provide compelling evidence that emergent abilities can primarily be ascribed to in-context learning. We find no evidence for the emergence of reasoning abilities, thus providing valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms driving the observed abilities and thus alleviating safety concerns regarding their use.

Evaluation of ChatGPT Family of Models for Biomedical Reasoning and Classification

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive ability in biomedical question-answering, but have not been adequately investigated for more specific biomedical applications. This study investigates the performance of LLMs such as the ChatGPT family of models (GPT-3.5s, GPT-4) in biomedical tasks beyond question-answering. Because no patient data can be passed to the OpenAI API public interface, we evaluated model performance with over 10000 samples as proxies for two fundamental tasks in the clinical domain - classification and reasoning. The first task is classifying whether statements of clinical and policy recommendations in scientific literature constitute health advice. The second task is causal relation detection from the biomedical literature. We compared LLMs with simpler models, such as bag-of-words (BoW) with logistic regression, and fine-tuned BioBERT models. Despite the excitement around viral ChatGPT, we found that fine-tuning for two fundamental NLP tasks remained the best strategy. The simple BoW model performed on par with the most complex LLM prompting. Prompt engineering required significant investment.