Search

ChatGPT, a recently developed product by openAI, is successfully leaving its mark as a multi-purpose natural language based chatbot. In this paper, we are more interested in analyzing its potential in the field of computational biology. A major share of work done by computational biologists these days involve coding up bioinformatics algorithms, analyzing data, creating pipelining scripts and even machine learning modeling and feature extraction. This paper focuses on the potential influence (both positive and negative) of ChatGPT in the mentioned aspects with illustrative examples from different perspectives. Compared to other fields of computer science, computational biology has (1) less coding resources, (2) more sensitivity and bias issues (deals with medical data), and (3) more necessity of coding assistance (people from diverse background come to this field). Keeping such issues in mind, we cover use cases such as code writing, reviewing, debugging, converting, refactoring, and pipelining using ChatGPT from the perspective of computational biologists in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale benchmark datasets are crucial in advancing research within the computer science communities. They enable the development of more sophisticated AI models and serve as "golden" benchmarks for evaluating their performance. Thus, ensuring the quality of these datasets is of utmost importance for academic research and the progress of AI systems. For the emerging vision-language tasks, some datasets have been created and frequently used, such as Flickr30k, COCO, and NoCaps, which typically contain a large number of images paired with their ground-truth textual descriptions. In this paper, an automatic method is proposed to assess the quality of large-scale benchmark datasets designed for vision-language tasks. In particular, a new cross-modal matching model is developed, which is capable of automatically scoring the textual descriptions of visual images. Subsequently, this model is employed to evaluate the quality of vision-language datasets by automatically assigning a score to each 'ground-truth' description for every image picture. With a good agreement between manual and automated scoring results on the datasets, our findings reveal significant disparities in the quality of the ground-truth descriptions included in the benchmark datasets. Even more surprising, it is evident that a small portion of the descriptions are unsuitable for serving as reliable ground-truth references. These discoveries emphasize the need for careful utilization of these publicly accessible benchmark databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]