arXiv Computation and Language
Generating Edit-Inducing Questions for AI Research Manuscripts
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv Machine Learning
6d ago
Edit Discovery in Human-AI Interactions
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 AI
Sep 15
AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing
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 Computation and Language
Sep 1
Towards AI-Assisted Research Writing: Benchmarking LLMs for AI/ML Introduction Generation
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 AI
Jun 29
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
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 AI
Jul 1
Self-Study Reconsidered: The Hidden Fragility of Learning from Self-Generated QA
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 24
Experts Rise Where LLMs Disagree: Using Cross-Model Disagreement to Target Expert Effort in LLM Codebook Revision for Large-Scale Annotation
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%).