How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions?

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate-about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

Holistic Evaluation of Language Models.

Language models (LMs) like GPT-3, PaLM, and ChatGPT are the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of LMs. LMs can serve many purposes and their behavior should satisfy many desiderata. To navigate the vast space of potential scenarios and metrics, we taxonomize the space and select representative subsets. We evaluate models on 16 core scenarios and 7 metrics, exposing important trade-offs. We supplement our core evaluation with seven targeted evaluations to deeply analyze specific aspects (including world knowledge, reasoning, regurgitation of copyrighted content, and generation of disinformation). We benchmark 30 LMs, from OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Cohere, AI21 Labs, and others. Prior to HELM, models were evaluated on just 17.9% of the core HELM scenarios, with some prominent models not sharing a single scenario in common. We improve this to 96.0%: all 30 models are now benchmarked under the same standardized conditions. Our evaluation surfaces 25 top-level findings. For full transparency, we release all raw model prompts and completions publicly. HELM is a living benchmark for the community, continuously updated with new scenarios, metrics, and models https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/.

Inferring Multidimensional Rates of Aging from Cross-Sectional Data.

Modeling how individuals evolve over time is a fundamental problem in the natural and social sciences. However, existing datasets are often cross-sectional with each individual observed only once, making it impossible to apply traditional time-series methods. Motivated by the study of human aging, we present an interpretable latent-variable model that learns temporal dynamics from cross-sectional data. Our model represents each individual's features over time as a nonlinear function of a low-dimensional, linearly-evolving latent state. We prove that when this nonlinear function is constrained to be order-isomorphic, the model family is identifiable solely from cross-sectional data provided the distribution of time-independent variation is known. On the UK Biobank human health dataset, our model reconstructs the observed data while learning interpretable rates of aging associated with diseases, mortality, and aging risk factors.

Training Classifiers with Natural Language Explanations.

Training accurate classifiers requires many labels, but each label provides only limited information (one bit for binary classification). In this work, we propose BabbleLabble, a framework for training classifiers in which an annotator provides a natural language explanation for each labeling decision. A semantic parser converts these explanations into programmatic labeling functions that generate noisy labels for an arbitrary amount of unlabeled data, which is used to train a classifier. On three relation extraction tasks, we find that users are able to train classifiers with comparable F1 scores from 5-100× faster by providing explanations instead of just labels. Furthermore, given the inherent imperfection of labeling functions, we find that a simple rule-based semantic parser suffices.