arXiv:2610.22661v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-AI interactions are becoming a rich source of data for improving AI systems: while many model responses are already satisfactory, others expose f...
arXiv:2609.14738v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it le...
arXiv:2508.14273v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As researchers increasingly adopt LLMs as writing assistants, generating high-quality research paper introductions remains both challenging and ess...
arXiv:2606. 28277v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving.
arXiv:2606. 32002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models are increasingly taught from synthetic question--answer (QA) supervision: a model generates questions about a document, answers them from the same text, and the resulting pairs are used to fine-tune, distill, or compress knowledge into another model.
The paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) to identify disagreements among models as a way to focus expert effort on revising codebooks for large‑scale text annotation. Three expert feedback methods are evaluated: editing LLM‑generated revisions (Codebook Verifying), answering questions about disagreements (Question Answering), and labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on tutoring‑session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling achieves the highest LLM‑labeling accuracy (64.9%) compared to the expert‑revised codebook (57.8%), with Question Answering also outperforming the baseline (60.5%).
The paper introduces "question archaeology," an evaluation task that asks models to infer the single, authentic question that motivated a text. It presents a new dataset of commissioned texts paired with their original research questions and distractors, and evaluates both proprietary and open‑source LLMs. Results show newer models outperform older ones, with BERT-based models lagging, and current LLMs even surpassing human performance on this task.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence.
arXiv:2610.22608v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in video generation let users create high-quality videos from natural language descriptions, yet obtaining results that match user inte...
arXiv:2609.36544v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI has changed how students produce writing assignments. The final artifact is no longer sufficient to understand the process through whic...
arXiv:2411.10163v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across various tasks, prompting researchers to develop diverse evaluation benchmark...
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.