Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

OpenDataVal: a Unified Benchmark for Data Valuation

Assessing the quality and impact of individual data points is critical for improving model performance and mitigating undesirable biases within the training dataset. Several data valuation algorithms have been proposed to quantify data quality, however, there lacks a systemic and standardized benchmarking system for data valuation. In this paper, we introduce OpenDataVal, an easy-to-use and unified benchmark framework that empowers researchers and practitioners to apply and compare various data valuation algorithms. OpenDataVal provides an integrated environment that includes (i) a diverse collection of image, natural language, and tabular datasets, (ii) implementations of nine different state-of-the-art data valuation algorithms, and (iii) a prediction model API that can import any models in scikit-learn. Furthermore, we propose four downstream machine learning tasks for evaluating the quality of data values. We perform benchmarking analysis using OpenDataVal, quantifying and comparing the efficacy of state-of-the-art data valuation approaches. We find that no single algorithm performs uniformly best across all tasks, and an appropriate algorithm should be employed for a user's downstream task. OpenDataVal is publicly available at https://opendataval.github.io with comprehensive documentation. Furthermore, we provide a leaderboard where researchers can evaluate the effectiveness of their own data valuation algorithms.

On the nonlinear correlation of ML performance between data subpopulations

Understanding the performance of machine learning (ML) models across diverse data distributions is critically important for reliable applications. Despite recent empirical studies positing a near-perfect linear correlation between in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) accuracies, we empirically demonstrate that this correlation is more nuanced under subpopulation shifts. Through rigorous experimentation and analysis across a variety of datasets, models, and training epochs, we demonstrate that OOD performance often has a nonlinear correlation with ID performance in subpopulation shifts. Our findings, which contrast previous studies that have posited a linear correlation in model performance during distribution shifts, reveal a "moon shape" correlation (parabolic uptrend curve) between the test performance on the majority subpopulation and the minority subpopulation. This non-trivial nonlinear correlation holds across model architectures, hyperparameters, training durations, and the imbalance between subpopulations. Furthermore, we found that the nonlinearity of this "moon shape" is causally influenced by the degree of spurious correlations in the training data. Our controlled experiments show that stronger spurious correlation in the training data creates more nonlinear performance correlation. We provide complementary experimental and theoretical analyses for this phenomenon, and discuss its implications for ML reliability and fairness. Our work highlights the importance of understanding the nonlinear effects of model improvement on performance in different subpopulations, and has the potential to inform the development of more equitable and responsible machine learning models.

GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers

The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse.

SEAL : Interactive Tool for Systematic Error Analysis and Labeling

With the advent of Transformers, large language models (LLMs) have saturated well-known NLP benchmarks and leaderboards with high aggregate performance. However, many times these models systematically fail on tail data or rare groups not obvious in aggregate evaluation. Identifying such problematic data groups is even more challenging when there are no explicit labels (e.g., ethnicity, gender, etc.) and further compounded for NLP datasets due to the lack of visual features to characterize failure modes (e.g., Asian males, animals indoors, waterbirds on land, etc.). This paper introduces an interactive Systematic Error Analysis and Labeling (\seal) tool that uses a two-step approach to first identify high error slices of data and then, in the second step, introduce methods to give human-understandable semantics to those underperforming slices. We explore a variety of methods for coming up with coherent semantics for the error groups using language models for semantic labeling and a text-to-image model for generating visual features. SEAL toolkit and demo screencast is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nazneen/seal.

Data Budgeting for Machine Learning

Data is the fuel powering AI and creates tremendous value for many domains. However, collecting datasets for AI is a time-consuming, expensive, and complicated endeavor. For practitioners, data investment remains to be a leap of faith in practice. In this work, we study the data budgeting problem and formulate it as two sub-problems: predicting (1) what is the saturating performance if given enough data, and (2) how many data points are needed to reach near the saturating performance. Different from traditional dataset-independent methods like PowerLaw, we proposed a learning method to solve data budgeting problems. To support and systematically evaluate the learning-based method for data budgeting, we curate a large collection of 383 tabular ML datasets, along with their data vs performance curves. Our empirical evaluation shows that it is possible to perform data budgeting given a small pilot study dataset with as few as $50$ data points.

GSCLIP : A Framework for Explaining Distribution Shifts in Natural Language

Helping end users comprehend the abstract distribution shifts can greatly facilitate AI deployment. Motivated by this, we propose a novel task, dataset explanation. Given two image data sets, dataset explanation aims to automatically point out their dataset-level distribution shifts with natural language. Current techniques for monitoring distribution shifts provide inadequate information to understand datasets with the goal of improving data quality. Therefore, we introduce GSCLIP, a training-free framework to solve the dataset explanation task. In GSCLIP, we propose the selector as the first quantitative evaluation method to identify explanations that are proper to summarize dataset shifts. Furthermore, we leverage this selector to demonstrate the superiority of a generator based on language model generation. Systematic evaluation on natural data shift verifies that GSCLIP, a combined system of a hybrid generator group and an efficient selector is not only easy-to-use but also powerful for dataset explanation at scale.

Disparities in Dermatology AI Performance on a Diverse, Curated Clinical Image Set

Access to dermatological care is a major issue, with an estimated 3 billion people lacking access to care globally. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in triaging skin diseases. However, most AI models have not been rigorously assessed on images of diverse skin tones or uncommon diseases. To ascertain potential biases in algorithm performance in this context, we curated the Diverse Dermatology Images (DDI) dataset-the first publicly available, expertly curated, and pathologically confirmed image dataset with diverse skin tones. Using this dataset of 656 images, we show that state-of-the-art dermatology AI models perform substantially worse on DDI, with receiver operator curve area under the curve (ROC-AUC) dropping by 27-36 percent compared to the models' original test results. All the models performed worse on dark skin tones and uncommon diseases, which are represented in the DDI dataset. Additionally, we find that dermatologists, who typically provide visual labels for AI training and test datasets, also perform worse on images of dark skin tones and uncommon diseases compared to ground truth biopsy annotations. Finally, fine-tuning AI models on the well-characterized and diverse DDI images closed the performance gap between light and dark skin tones. Moreover, algorithms fine-tuned on diverse skin tones outperformed dermatologists on identifying malignancy on images of dark skin tones. Our findings identify important weaknesses and biases in dermatology AI that need to be addressed to ensure reliable application to diverse patients and diseases.

Mind the Gap: Understanding the Modality Gap in Multi-modal Contrastive Representation Learning

We present modality gap, an intriguing geometric phenomenon of the representation space of multi-modal models. Specifically, we show that different data modalities (e.g. images and text) are embedded at arm's length in their shared representation in multi-modal models such as CLIP. Our systematic analysis demonstrates that this gap is caused by a combination of model initialization and contrastive learning optimization. In model initialization, we show empirically and theoretically that the representation of a common deep neural network is restricted to a narrow cone. As a consequence, in a multi-modal model with two encoders, the representations of the two modalities are clearly apart when the model is initialized. During optimization, contrastive learning keeps the different modalities separate by a certain distance, which is influenced by the temperature parameter in the loss function. Our experiments further demonstrate that varying the modality gap distance has a significant impact in improving the model's downstream zero-shot classification performance and fairness. Our code and data are available at https://modalitygap.readthedocs.io/

MetaShift: A Dataset of Datasets for Evaluating Contextual Distribution Shifts and Training Conflicts

Understanding the performance of machine learning models across diverse data distributions is critically important for reliable applications. Motivated by this, there is a growing focus on curating benchmark datasets that capture distribution shifts. While valuable, the existing benchmarks are limited in that many of them only contain a small number of shifts and they lack systematic annotation about what is different across different shifts. We present MetaShift--a collection of 12,868 sets of natural images across 410 classes--to address this challenge. We leverage the natural heterogeneity of Visual Genome and its annotations to construct MetaShift. The key construction idea is to cluster images using its metadata, which provides context for each image (e.g. "cats with cars" or "cats in bathroom") that represent distinct data distributions. MetaShift has two important benefits: first, it contains orders of magnitude more natural data shifts than previously available. Second, it provides explicit explanations of what is unique about each of its data sets and a distance score that measures the amount of distribution shift between any two of its data sets. We demonstrate the utility of MetaShift in benchmarking several recent proposals for training models to be robust to data shifts. We find that the simple empirical risk minimization performs the best when shifts are moderate and no method had a systematic advantage for large shifts. We also show how MetaShift can help to visualize conflicts between data subsets during model training.