Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Language style is often used by writers to convey their intentions, identities, and mastery of language. In this paper, we show that current large language models struggle to capture some language styles without fine-tuning. To address this challenge, we investigate whether LLMs can be meta-trained based on representative lexicons to recognize new styles they have not been fine-tuned on. Experiments on 13 established style classification tasks, as well as 63 novel tasks generated using LLMs, demonstrate that meta-training with style lexicons consistently improves zero-shot transfer across styles. We release the code and data at https://github.com/octaviaguo/Style-LLM.

In this paper, we study the task of instructional dialogue and focus on the cooking domain. Analyzing the generated output of the GPT-J model, we reveal that the primary challenge for a recipe-grounded dialog system is how to provide the instructions in the correct order. We hypothesize that this is due to the model’s lack of understanding of user intent and inability to track the instruction state (i.e., which step was last instructed). Therefore, we propose to explore two auxiliary subtasks, namely User Intent Detection and Instruction State Tracking, to support Response Generation with improved instruction grounding. Experimenting with our newly collected dataset, ChattyChef, shows that incorporating user intent and instruction state information helps the response generation model mitigate the incorrect order issue. Furthermore, to investigate whether ChatGPT has completely solved this task, we analyze its outputs and find that it also makes mistakes (10.7% of the responses), about half of which are out-of-order instructions. We will release ChattyChef to facilitate further research in this area at: https://github.com/octaviaguo/ChattyChef.