Search

Purpose: Journal Impact Factors and other citation-based indicators are widely used and abused to help select journals to publish in or to estimate the value of a published article. Nevertheless, citation rates primarily reflect scholarly impact rather than other quality dimensions, including societal impact, originality, and rigour. In contrast, Journal Quality Factors (JQFs) are average quality score estimates given to a journal's articles by ChatGPT. Design: JQFs were compared with Polish, Norwegian and Finnish journal ranks and with journal citation rates for 1,300 journals with 130,000 articles from 2021 in large monodisciplinary journals in the 25 out of 27 Scopus broad fields of research for which it was possible. Outliers were also examined. Findings: JQFs correlated positively and mostly strongly (median correlation: 0.641) with journal ranks in 24 out of the 25 broad fields examined, indicating a nearly science-wide ability for ChatGPT to estimate journal quality. Journal citation rates had similarly high correlations with national journal ranks, however, so JQFs are not a universally better indicator. An examination of journals with JQFs not matching their journal ranks suggested that abstract styles may affect the result, such as whether the societal contexts of research are mentioned. Limitations: Different journal rankings may have given different findings because there is no agreed meaning for journal quality. Implications: The results suggest that JQFs are plausible as journal quality indicators in all fields and may be useful for the (few) research and evaluation contexts where journal quality is an acceptable proxy for article quality, and especially for fields like mathematics for which citations are not strong indicators of quality. Originality: This is the first attempt to estimate academic journal value with a Large Language Model.

The growth of recommender systems (RecSys) is driven by digitization and the need for personalized content in areas such as e-commerce and video streaming. The content in these systems often changes rapidly and therefore they constantly face the ongoing cold-start problem, where new items lack interaction data and are hard to value. Existing solutions for the cold-start problem, such as content-based recommenders and hybrid methods, leverage item metadata to determine item similarities. The main challenge with these methods is their reliance on structured and informative metadata to capture detailed item similarities, which may not always be available. This paper introduces a novel approach for cold-start item recommendation that utilizes the language model (LM) to estimate item similarities, which are further integrated as a Bayesian prior with classic recommender systems. This approach is generic and able to boost the performance of various recommenders. Specifically, our experiments integrate it with both sequential and collaborative filtering-based recommender and evaluate it on two real-world datasets, demonstrating the enhanced performance of the proposed approach., Comment: This paper is dedicated to cold-start item recommendation using language-model priors

Academics and departments are sometimes judged by how their research has benefitted society. For example, the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses Impact Case Studies (ICS), which are five-page evidence-based claims of societal impacts. This study investigates whether ChatGPT can evaluate societal impact claims and therefore potentially support expert human assessors. For this, various parts of 6,220 public ICS from REF2021 were fed to ChatGPT 4o-mini along with the REF2021 evaluation guidelines, comparing the results with published departmental average ICS scores. The results suggest that the optimal strategy for high correlations with expert scores is to input the title and summary of an ICS but not the remaining text, and to modify the original REF guidelines to encourage a stricter evaluation. The scores generated by this approach correlated positively with departmental average scores in all 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs), with values between 0.18 (Economics and Econometrics) and 0.56 (Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience). At the departmental level, the corresponding correlations were higher, reaching 0.71 for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism. Thus, ChatGPT-based ICS evaluations are simple and viable to support or cross-check expert judgments, although their value varies substantially between fields.

Learning of preference models from human feedback has been central to recent advances in artificial intelligence. Motivated by the cost of obtaining high-quality human annotations, we study efficient human preference elicitation for learning preference models. The key idea in our work is to generalize optimal designs, a methodology for computing optimal information-gathering policies, to questions with multiple answers, represented as lists of items. The policy is a distribution over lists and we elicit preferences from the list proportionally to its probability. To show the generality of our ideas, we study both absolute and ranking feedback models on items in the list. We design efficient algorithms for both and analyze them. Finally, we demonstrate that our algorithms are practical by evaluating them on existing question-answering problems., Comment: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37

Fuzzy dark matter (FDM) is a promising candidate for dark matter, characterized by its ultra-light mass, which gives rise to wave effects at astrophysical scales. These effects offer potential solutions to the small-scale issues encountered within the standard cold dark matter (CDM) paradigm. In this paper, we investigate the large-scale structure of the cosmic web using FDM simulations, comparing them to CDM-only simulations and a simulation incorporating baryonic effects. Our study employs the nearest neighbor (NN) analysis as a new statistical tool for examining the structure and statistics of the cosmic web in an FDM universe. This analysis could capture the information absent in the two-point correlation functions. In particular, we analyze data related to the spherical contact, nearest neighbor distances, and the angle between the first and second nearest neighbors of halos. Specifically, we utilize probability distribution functions, statistical moments, and fitting parameters, as well as G(x), F(x), and J(x) functions to analyze the above data. Remarkably, the results from the FDM simulations differ significantly from the others across these analyses, while no noticeable distinction is observed between the baryonic and CDM-only simulations. Moreover, the lower FDM mass leads to more significant deviations from the CDM simulations. These compelling results highlight the efficiency of the NN analysis - mainly through the use of the J(x) function, $s_3$, $l_{3}$ and $a_4$ parameters - as a prominent new tool for investigating FDM on large scales and making observational predictions., Comment: 11 pages, 7 figures, 3 Tables and 2 appendices; updated to match the published version in MNRAS (one appendix added)

We study the problem of best-arm identification (BAI) in the fixed-budget setting with heterogeneous reward variances. We propose two variance-adaptive BAI algorithms for this setting: SHVar for known reward variances and SHAdaVar for unknown reward variances. Our algorithms rely on non-uniform budget allocations among the arms where the arms with higher reward variances are pulled more often than those with lower variances. The main algorithmic novelty is in the design of SHAdaVar, which allocates budget greedily based on overestimating the unknown reward variances. We bound probabilities of misidentifying the best arms in both SHVar and SHAdaVar. Our analyses rely on novel lower bounds on the number of pulls of an arm that do not require closed-form solutions to the budget allocation problem. Since one of our budget allocation problems is analogous to the optimal experiment design with unknown variances, we believe that our results are of a broad interest. Our experiments validate our theory, and show that SHVar and SHAdaVar outperform algorithms from prior works with analytical guarantees.

Ultra-light scalar fields and their non-interacting class, the so-called fuzzy dark matter (FDM), are candidates for dark matter, introduced to solve the small-scale problems of the standard cold dark matter. In this paper, we address whether the small-scale effects, specifically the quantum pressure, could leave sizable imprints on the large-scale statistics of the matter. For this purpose, We utilize the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures (EFT of LSS) wherein small-scale physics is integrated and represented on large scales by only a set of free parameters. These parameters can be determined by fitting to the cosmological simulations. We use the \textit{Gadget-2} code to study the evolution of $512^3$ particles in a box of side length $250\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. Fitting EFT predictions to the simulation data, we determine the value of the speed of sound. We use the suppressed FDM initial conditions for the FDM case, sufficient to produce accurate -- enough for our purpose -- results on large scales. We perform three FDM simulations with different masses and compare their sound speed with the standard cold dark matter (CDM) simulation. We found that the FDM sound speed is slightly higher than CDM's. The deviation of the sound speed for FDM from CDM is larger for lower FDM masses. We conclude that the impact of the FDM is not limited to the small scales alone, and we can search for them by studying the matter on large scales. Though it is beyond the observations' scope today, it is possible to discriminate it with upcoming observations., Comment: 17 pages, 6 figures and 1 table; updated to match the published version (discussions improved, figures 5-6 updated and Sec. 2.1 moved to Appendix)

Systematic evaluations of publicly funded research typically employ a combination of bibliometrics and peer review, but it is not known whether the bibliometric component introduces biases. This article compares three alternative mechanisms for scoring 73,612 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) journal articles from all 34 field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) 2014-17: peer review, field normalised citations, and journal average field normalised citation impact. All three were standardised into a four-point scale. The results suggest that in almost all academic fields, bibliometric scoring can disadvantage departments publishing high quality research, with the main exception of article citation rates in chemistry. Thus, introducing journal or article level citation information into peer review exercises may have a regression to the mean effect. Bibliometric scoring slightly advantaged women compared to men, but this varied between UoAs and was most evident in the physical sciences, engineering, and social sciences. In contrast, interdisciplinary research gained from bibliometric scoring in about half of the UoAs, but relatively substantially in two. In conclusion, out of the three potential source of bias examined, the most serious seems to be the tendency for bibliometric scores to work against high quality departments, assuming that the peer review scores are correct. This is almost a paradox: although high quality departments tend to get the highest bibliometric scores, bibliometrics conceal the full extent of departmental quality advantages. This should be considered when using bibliometrics or bibliometric informed peer review.

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with journal article quality. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-17/18, split into 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs). The results show that altmetrics are better indicators of research quality than previously thought, although not as good as raw and field normalised Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalising citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best, tweet counts are also a relatively strong indicator in many fields, and Facebook, blogs and news citations are moderately strong indicators in some UoAs, at least in the UK. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities. The Altmetric Attention Score, although hybrid, is almost as good as Mendeley reader counts as a quality indicator and reflects more non-scholarly impacts.

This literature review identifies indicators that associate with higher impact or higher quality research from article text (e.g., titles, abstracts, lengths, cited references and readability) or metadata (e.g., the number of authors, international or domestic collaborations, journal impact factors and authors' h-index). This includes studies that used machine learning techniques to predict citation counts or quality scores for journal articles or conference papers. The literature review also includes evidence about the strength of association between bibliometric indicators and quality score rankings from previous UK Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) and REFs in different subjects and years and similar evidence from other countries (e.g., Australia and Italy). In support of this, the document also surveys studies that used public datasets of citations, social media indictors or open review texts (e.g., Dimensions, OpenCitations, Altmetric.com and Publons) to help predict the scholarly impact of articles. The results of this part of the literature review were used to inform the experiments using machine learning to predict REF journal article quality scores, as reported in the AI experiments report for this project. The literature review also covers technology to automate editorial processes, to provide quality control for papers and reviewers' suggestions, to match reviewers with articles, and to automatically categorise journal articles into fields. Bias and transparency in technology assisted assessment are also discussed.

Collaborative research causes problems for research assessments because of the difficulty in fairly crediting its authors. Whilst splitting the rewards for an article amongst its authors has the greatest surface-level fairness, many important evaluations assign full credit to each author, irrespective of team size. The underlying rationales for this are labour reduction and the need to incentivise collaborative work because it is necessary to solve many important societal problems. This article assesses whether full counting changes results compared to fractional counting in the case of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. For this assessment, fractional counting reduces the number of journal articles to as little as 10% of the full counting value, depending on the Unit of Assessment (UoA). Despite this large difference, allocating an overall grade point average (GPA) based on full counting or fractional counting give results with a median Pearson correlation within UoAs of 0.98. The largest changes are for Archaeology (r=0.84) and Physics (r=0.88). There is a weak tendency for higher scoring institutions to lose from fractional counting, with the loss being statistically significant in 5 of the 34 UoAs. Thus, whilst the apparent over-weighting of contributions to collaboratively authored outputs does not seem too problematic from a fairness perspective overall, it may be worth examining in the few UoAs in which it makes the most difference.

Co-authored articles tend to be more cited in many academic fields, but is this because they tend to be higher quality or is it an audience effect: increased awareness through multiple author networks? We address this unknown with the largest investigation yet into whether author numbers associate with research quality, using expert peer quality judgements for 122,331 non-review journal articles submitted by UK academics for the 2014-20 national assessment process. Spearman correlations between the number of authors and the quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering, and social sciences. In contrast, we found little or no association in the arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives reasonably conclusive evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other non-quality factors account for the higher citation rates of co-authored articles in some fields.

The Journal Impact Factor and other indicators that assess the average citation rate of articles in a journal are consulted by many academics and research evaluators, despite initiatives against overreliance on them. Despite this, there is limited evidence about the extent to which journal impact indicators in any field relates to human judgements about the journals or their articles. In response, we compared average citation rates of journals against expert judgements of their articles in all fields of science. We used preliminary quality scores for 96,031 articles published 2014-18 from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. We show that whilst there is a positive correlation between expert judgements of article quality and average journal impact in all fields of science, it is very weak in many fields and is never strong. The strength of the correlation varies from 0.11 to 0.43 for the 27 broad fields of Scopus. The highest correlation for the 94 Scopus narrow fields with at least 750 articles was only 0.54, for Infectious Diseases, and there was only one negative correlation, for the mixed category Computer Science (all). The results suggest that the average citation impact of a Scopus-indexed journal is never completely irrelevant to the quality of an article, even though it is never a strong indicator of article quality.

Purpose: Scholars often aim to conduct high quality research and their success is judged primarily by peer reviewers. Research quality is difficult for either group to identify, however, and misunderstandings can reduce the efficiency of the scientific enterprise. In response, we use a novel term association strategy to seek quantitative evidence of aspects of research that associate with high or low quality. Design/methodology/approach: We extracted the words and 2-5-word phrases most strongly associating with different quality scores in each of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. We extracted the terms from 122,331 journal articles 2014-2020 with individual REF2021 quality scores. Findings: The terms associating with high- or low-quality scores vary between fields but relate to writing styles, methods, and topics. We show that the first-person writing style strongly associates with higher quality research in many areas because it is the norm for a set of large prestigious journals. We found methods and topics that associate with both high- and low-quality scores. Worryingly, terms associating with educational and qualitative research attract lower quality scores in multiple areas. REF experts may rarely give high scores to qualitative or educational research because the authors tend to be less competent, because it is harder to make world leading research with these themes, or because they do not value them. Originality: This is the first investigation of journal article terms associating with research quality.

The search for and management of external funding now occupies much valuable researcher time. Whilst funding is essential for some types of research and beneficial for others, it may also constrain academic choice and creativity. Thus, it is important to assess whether it is ever detrimental or unnecessary. Here we investigate whether funded research tends to be higher quality in all fields and for all major research funders. Based on peer review quality scores for 113,877 articles from all fields in the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, we estimate that there are substantial disciplinary differences in the proportion of funded journal articles, from Theology and Religious Studies (16%+) to Biological Sciences (91%+). The results suggest that funded research is likely to be higher quality overall, for all the largest research funders, and for all fields, even after factoring out research team size. There are differences between funders in the average quality of the research they support, however. Funding seems particularly beneficial in health-related fields. The results do not show cause and effect and do not take into account the amount of funding received but are consistent with funding either improving research quality or being won by high quality researchers or projects. In summary, there are no broad fields of research in which funding is irrelevant, so no fields can afford to ignore it. The results also show that citations are not effective proxies for research quality in the arts and humanities and most social sciences for evaluating research funding.

International collaboration is sometimes encouraged in the belief that it generates higher quality research or is more capable of addressing societal problems. Nevertheless, while there is evidence that the journal articles of international teams tend to be more cited than average, perhaps from increased international audiences, there is no science-wide direct academic evidence of a connection between international collaboration and research quality. This article empirically investigates the connection between international collaboration and research quality for the first time, with 148,977 UK-based journal articles with post publication expert review scores from the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Using an ordinal regression model controlling for collaboration, international partners increased the odds of higher quality scores in 27 out of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) and all Main Panels. The results therefore give the first large scale evidence of the fields in which international co-authorship for articles is usually apparently beneficial. At the country level, the results suggests that UK collaboration with other high research-expenditure economies generates higher quality research, even when the countries produce lower citation impact journal articles than the United Kingdom. Worryingly, collaborations with lower research-expenditure economies tend to be judged lower quality, possibly through misunderstanding Global South research goals., Comment: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalised citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoAs). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, whilst appropriately field normalised citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

National research evaluation initiatives and incentive schemes have previously chosen between simplistic quantitative indicators and time-consuming peer review, sometimes supported by bibliometrics. Here we assess whether artificial intelligence (AI) could provide a third alternative, estimating article quality using more multiple bibliometric and metadata inputs. We investigated this using provisional three-level REF2021 peer review scores for 84,966 articles submitted to the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021, matching a Scopus record 2014-18 and with a substantial abstract. We found that accuracy is highest in the medical and physical sciences Units of Assessment (UoAs) and economics, reaching 42% above the baseline (72% overall) in the best case. This is based on 1000 bibliometric inputs and half of the articles used for training in each UoA. Prediction accuracies above the baseline for the social science, mathematics, engineering, arts, and humanities UoAs were much lower or close to zero. The Random Forest Classifier (standard or ordinal) and Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier algorithms performed best from the 32 tested. Accuracy was lower if UoAs were merged or replaced by Scopus broad categories. We increased accuracy with an active learning strategy and by selecting articles with higher prediction probabilities, as estimated by the algorithms, but this substantially reduced the number of scores predicted.

This document describes strategies for using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to predict some journal article scores in future research assessment exercises. Five strategies have been assessed.

Image noise modeling is a long-standing problem with many applications in computer vision. Early attempts that propose simple models, such as signal-independent additive white Gaussian noise or the heteroscedastic Gaussian noise model (a.k.a., camera noise level function) are not sufficient to learn the complex behavior of the camera sensor noise. Recently, more complex learning-based models have been proposed that yield better results in noise synthesis and downstream tasks, such as denoising. However, their dependence on supervised data (i.e., paired clean images) is a limiting factor given the challenges in producing ground-truth images. This paper proposes a framework for training a noise model and a denoiser simultaneously while relying only on pairs of noisy images rather than noisy/clean paired image data. We apply this framework to the training of the Noise Flow architecture. The noise synthesis and density estimation results show that our framework outperforms previous signal-processing-based noise models and is on par with its supervised counterpart. The trained denoiser is also shown to significantly improve upon both supervised and weakly supervised baseline denoising approaches. The results indicate that the joint training of a denoiser and a noise model yields significant improvements in the denoiser., Comment: CVPR 2022

Noise modeling and reduction are fundamental tasks in low-level computer vision. They are particularly important for smartphone cameras relying on small sensors that exhibit visually noticeable noise. There has recently been renewed interest in using data-driven approaches to improve camera noise models via neural networks. These data-driven approaches target noise present in the raw-sensor image before it has been processed by the camera's image signal processor (ISP). Modeling noise in the RAW-rgb domain is useful for improving and testing the in-camera denoising algorithm; however, there are situations where the camera's ISP does not apply denoising or additional denoising is desired when the RAW-rgb domain image is no longer available. In such cases, the sensor noise propagates through the ISP to the final rendered image encoded in standard RGB (sRGB). The nonlinear steps on the ISP culminate in a significantly more complex noise distribution in the sRGB domain and existing raw-domain noise models are unable to capture the sRGB noise distribution. We propose a new sRGB-domain noise model based on normalizing flows that is capable of learning the complex noise distribution found in sRGB images under various ISO levels. Our normalizing flows-based approach outperforms other models by a large margin in noise modeling and synthesis tasks. We also show that image denoisers trained on noisy images synthesized with our noise model outperforms those trained with noise from baselines models., Comment: CVPR 2022

Understanding and visualizing the full-stack performance trade-offs and interplay between HPC applications, MPI libraries, the communication fabric, and the file system is a challenging endeavor. Designing a holistic profiling and visualization method for HPC communication networks is challenging since different levels of communication coexist and interact with each other on the communication fabric. A breakdown of traffic is essential to understand the interplay of different layers along with the application's communication behavior without losing a general view of network traffic. Unfortunately, existing profiling tools are disjoint and either focus on only profiling and visualizing a few levels of the HPC stack, which limits the insights they can provide, or they provide extremely detailed information which necessitates a steep learning curve to understand. We target our profiling tool visualization to provide holistic and real-time insights into HPC communication stacks. In this paper, we propose and implement our visualization methods to enable holistic insight for representing the cross-stack metrics. Moreover, we propose and implement a low-overhead I/O profiling inside the communication library, collect and store the profiling information, and then study the correlation and evaluation of I/O traffic with MPI communication using a cross-stack approach by INAM. Through experimental evaluations and use cases, we demonstrate novel benefits of our cross-stack communication analysis in real-time to detect bottlenecks and understand communication performance., Comment: 11 pages, under submission