Obtaining high-quality, pre-submission feedback is a critical bottleneck in the academic publication lifecycle for researchers. We introduce AutoRev, an automated author-centric feedback system that generates structured, actionable guidance prior to formal peer review. AutoRev employs a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation framework that models each paper as a hierarchical document graph, integrating textual and structural representations to retrieve salient content efficiently. By leveraging graph-based passage retrieval, AutoRev substantially reduces LLM input context length, leading to higher-quality feedback generation. Experimental results demonstrate that AutoRev significantly outperforms baselines across multiple automatic evaluation metrics, while achieving strong performance in human evaluations. We have made our code publicly available.

The proliferation of LLMs in various NLP tasks has sparked debates regarding their reliability, particularly in annotation tasks where biases and hallucinations may arise. In this shared task, we address the challenge of distinguishing annotations made by LLMs from those made by human domain experts in the context of COVID-19 symptom detection from tweets in Latin American Spanish. This paper presents BrainStorm @ iREL’s approach to the #SMM4H 2024 Shared Task, leveraging the inherent topical information in tweets, we propose a novel approach to identify and classify annotations, aiming to enhance the trustworthiness of annotated data.

This paper describes our approach for SemEval-2024 Task 9: BRAINTEASER: A Novel Task Defying Common Sense. The BRAINTEASER task comprises multiple-choice Question Answering designed to evaluate the models’ lateral thinking capabilities. It consists of Sentence Puzzle and Word Puzzle subtasks that require models to defy default commonsense associations and exhibit unconventional thinking. We propose a unique strategy to improve the performance of pre-trained language models, notably the Gemini 1.0 Pro Model, in both subtasks. We employ static and dynamic few-shot prompting techniques and introduce a model-generated reasoning strategy that utilizes the LLM’s reasoning capabilities to improve performance. Our approach demonstrated significant improvements, showing that it performed better than the baseline models by a considerable margin but fell short of performing as well as the human annotators, thus highlighting the efficacy of the proposed strategies.

Traditional evaluation metrics like BLEU and ROUGE fall short when capturing the nuanced qualities of generated text, particularly when there is no single ground truth. In this paper, we explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Google Gemini 1, to serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks. We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality annotators when compared with human judgments on the SummEval and USR datasets, asking the model to generate both a score as well as a justification for the score. Furthermore, we explore the robustness of the LLM evaluator by using perturbed inputs. Our findings suggest that while LLMs show promise, their alignment with human evaluators is limited, they are not robust against perturbations and significant improvements are required for their standalone use as reliable evaluators for subjective metrics.