Writing a scientific article is a challenging task as it is a highly codified and specific genre, consequently proficiency in written communication is essential for effectively conveying research findings and ideas. In this article, we propose an original textual resource on the revision step of the writing process of scientific articles. This new dataset, called CASIMIR, contains the multiple revised versions of 15,646 scientific articles from OpenReview, along with their peer reviews. Pairs of consecutive versions of an article are aligned at sentence-level while keeping paragraph location information as metadata for supporting future revision studies at the discourse level. Each pair of revised sentences is enriched with automatically extracted edits and associated revision intention. To assess the initial quality on the dataset, we conducted a qualitative study of several state-of-the-art text revision approaches and compared various evaluation metrics. Our experiments led us to question the relevance of the current evaluation methods for the text revision task.

Recent advances have led to the availability of many pre-trained language models (PLMs); however, a question that remains is how much data is truly needed to fine-tune PLMs for downstream tasks? In this work, we introduce DEFT, a data-efficient fine-tuning framework that leverages unsupervised core-set selection to minimize the amount of data needed to fine-tune PLMs for downstream tasks. We demonstrate the efficacy of our DEFT framework in the context of text-editing LMs, and compare to the state-of-the art text-editing model, CoEDIT. Our quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that DEFT models are just as accurate as CoEDIT while being finetuned on ~70% less data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.