Millions of users prompt large language models (LLMs) for various tasks, but how good are people at prompt engineering? Do users actually get closer to their desired outcome over multiple iterations of their prompts? These questions are crucial when no gold-standard labels are available to measure progress. This paper investigates a scenario in LLM-powered data labeling, "prompting in the dark," where users iteratively prompt LLMs to label data without using manually-labeled benchmarks. We developed PromptingSheet, a Google Sheets add-on that enables users to compose, revise, and iteratively label data through spreadsheets. Through a study with 20 participants, we found that prompting in the dark was highly unreliable-only 9 participants improved labeling accuracy after four or more iterations. Automated prompt optimization tools like DSPy also struggled when few gold labels were available. Our findings highlight the importance of gold labels and the needs, as well as the risks, of automated support in human prompt engineering, providing insights for future tool design.

A language can have different varieties. These varieties can affect the performance of natural language processing (NLP) models, including large language models (LLMs), which are often trained on data from widely spoken varieties. This paper introduces a novel and cost-effective approach to benchmark model performance across language varieties. We argue that international online review platforms, such as Booking.com, can serve as effective data sources for constructing datasets that capture comments in different language varieties from similar real-world scenarios, like reviews for the same hotel with the same rating using the same language (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) but different language varieties (e.g., Taiwan Mandarin, Mainland Mandarin). To prove this concept, we constructed a contextually aligned dataset comprising reviews in Taiwan Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin and tested six LLMs in a sentiment analysis task. Our results show that LLMs consistently underperform in Taiwan Mandarin.

Figures and their captions play a key role in scientific publications. However, despite their importance, many captions in published papers are poorly crafted, largely due to a lack of attention by paper authors. While prior AI research has explored caption generation, it has mainly focused on reader-centered use cases, where users evaluate generated captions rather than actively integrating them into their writing. This paper addresses this gap by investigating how paper authors incorporate AI-generated captions into their writing process through a user study involving 18 participants. Each participant rewrote captions for two figures from their own recently published work, using captions generated by state-of-the-art AI models as a resource. By analyzing video recordings of the writing process through interaction analysis, we observed that participants often began by copying and refining AI-generated captions. Paper writers favored longer, detail-rich captions that integrated textual and visual elements but found current AI models less effective for complex figures.

Scientific figure captioning is a complex task that requires generating contextually appropriate descriptions of visual content. However, existing methods often fall short by utilizing incomplete information, treating the task solely as either an image-to-text or text summarization problem. This limitation hinders the generation of high-quality captions that fully capture the necessary details. Moreover, existing data sourced from arXiv papers contain low-quality captions, posing significant challenges for training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we introduce a framework called Multi-LLM Collaborative Figure Caption Generation (MLBCAP) to address these challenges by leveraging specialized LLMs for distinct sub-tasks. Our approach unfolds in three key modules: (Quality Assessment) We utilize multimodal LLMs to assess the quality of training data, enabling the filtration of low-quality captions. (Diverse Caption Generation) We then employ a strategy of fine-tuning/prompting multiple LLMs on the captioning task to generate candidate captions. (Judgment) Lastly, we prompt a prominent LLM to select the highest quality caption from the candidates, followed by refining any remaining inaccuracies. Human evaluations demonstrate that informative captions produced by our approach rank better than human-written captions, highlighting its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/teamreboott/MLBCAP

Detecting logical fallacies in texts can help users spot argument flaws, but automating this detection is not easy. Manually annotating fallacies in large-scale, real-world text data to create datasets for developing and validating detection models is costly. This paper introduces CoCoLoFa, the largest known logical fallacy dataset, containing 7,706 comments for 648 news articles, with each comment labeled for fallacy presence and type. We recruited 143 crowd workers to write comments embodying specific fallacy types (e.g., slippery slope) in response to news articles. Recognizing the complexity of this writing task, we built an LLM-powered assistant into the workers' interface to aid in drafting and refining their comments. Experts rated the writing quality and labeling validity of CoCoLoFa as high and reliable. BERT-based models fine-tuned using CoCoLoFa achieved the highest fallacy detection (F1=0.86) and classification (F1=0.87) performance on its test set, outperforming the state-of-the-art LLMs. Our work shows that combining crowdsourcing and LLMs enables us to more effectively construct datasets for complex linguistic phenomena that crowd workers find challenging to produce on their own.

We assess the capability of GPT-3.5, LLaMA-2 iterative editing to ensure that the revised texts meet the 70B, and Mixtral 8x7B, to generate content at various readability desired difficulty criteria. This readability assessment is based on levels through zero-shot and few-shot prompting. Evaluating 100 various linguistic features, with sentence length and word frequency processed educational materials reveals that few-shot prompting identified as key factors in previous studies [11]. Although this significantly improves performance in readability manipulation and process appears straightforward, accurately adjusting these elements information preservation. LLaMA-2 70B performs better in achieving to achieve the target reading difficulty is challenging. This the desired difficulty range, while GPT-3.5 maintains original task becomes even more complex for young learners, where factors meaning. However, manual inspection highlights concerns such such as decodability [19], information load [15], and other elements as misinformation introduction and inconsistent edit distribution.

Despite a surge collection of XAI methods, users still struggle to obtain required AI explanations. Previous research suggests chatbots as dynamic solutions, but the effective design of conversational XAI agents for practical human needs remains under-explored. This paper focuses on Conversational XAI for AI-assisted scientific writing tasks. Drawing from human linguistic theories and formative studies, we identify four design rationales: "multifaceted", "controllability", "mix-initiative", "context-aware drill-down". We incorporate them into an interactive prototype, ConvXAI, which facilitates heterogeneous AI explanations for scientific writing through dialogue. In two studies with 21 users, ConvXAI outperforms a GUI-based baseline on improving human-perceived understanding and writing improvement. The paper further discusses the practical human usage patterns in interacting with ConvXAI for scientific co-writing.

Advances in Large Language Models (e.g., GPT-4, LLaMA) have improved the generation of coherent sentences resembling human writing on a large scale, resulting in the creation of so-called deepfake texts. However, this progress poses security and privacy concerns, necessitating effective solutions for distinguishing deepfake texts from human-written ones. Although prior works studied humans' ability to detect deepfake texts, none has examined whether "collaboration" among humans improves the detection of deepfake texts. In this study, to address this gap of understanding on deepfake texts, we conducted experiments with two groups: (1) nonexpert individuals from the AMT platform and (2) writing experts from the Upwork platform. The results demonstrate that collaboration among humans can potentially improve the detection of deepfake texts for both groups, increasing detection accuracies by 6.36% for non-experts and 12.76% for experts, respectively, compared to individuals' detection accuracies. We further analyze the explanations that humans used for detecting a piece of text as deepfake text, and find that the strongest indicator of deepfake texts is their lack of coherence and consistency. Our study provides useful insights for future tools and framework designs to facilitate the collaborative human detection of deepfake texts. The experiment datasets and AMT implementations are available at: https://github.com/huashen218/llm-deepfake-human-study.git

Good figure captions help paper readers understand complex scientific figures. Unfortunately, even published papers often have poorly written captions. Automatic caption generation could aid paper writers by providing good starting captions that can be refined for better quality. Prior work often treated figure caption generation as a vision-to-language task. In this paper, we show that it can be more effectively tackled as a text summarization task in scientific documents. We fine-tuned PEGASUS, a pre-trained abstractive summarization model, to specifically summarize figure-referencing paragraphs (e.g., "Figure 3 shows...") into figure captions. Experiments on large-scale arXiv figures show that our method outperforms prior vision methods in both automatic and human evaluations. We further conducted an in-depth investigation focused on two key challenges: (i) the common presence of low-quality author-written captions and (ii) the lack of clear standards for good captions. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/Generating-Figure-Captions-as-a-Text-Summarization-Task.

The rapid growth of scientific publications, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the need for tools to help researchers efficiently comprehend the latest advancements. One essential part of understanding scientific literature is research aspect classification, which categorizes sentences in abstracts to Background, Purpose, Method, and Finding. In this study, we investigate the impact of different datasets on model performance for the crowd-annotated CODA-19 research aspect classification task. Specifically, we explore the potential benefits of using the large, automatically curated PubMed 200K RCT dataset and evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), such as LLaMA, GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Our results indicate that using the PubMed 200K RCT dataset does not improve performance for the CODA-19 task. We also observe that while GPT-4 performs well, it does not outperform the SciBERT model fine-tuned on the CODA-19 dataset, emphasizing the importance of a dedicated and task-aligned datasets dataset for the target task. Our code is available at https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/CODA-19-exp.