Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2405.15739v2

In their study titled "Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias," authors Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori, Sylvia Wenmackers, and Vincent Ginis delve into the impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 on citation practices in scientific knowledge dissemination. The researchers highlight the crucial role citation practices play in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge while acknowledging that these practices are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The introduction of LLMs such as GPT-4 introduces a new dynamic to citation practices. This is particularly evident in the context of recommending references based solely on parametric knowledge rather than search or retrieval-augmented generation. Despite this shift, the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by LLMs remain largely unexplored. To address this gap, the authors conducted an experiment using a dataset comprising 166 papers from prestigious conferences such as AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. These papers were published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date and collectively included 3,066 references. In the experiment, GPT-4 was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for anonymized in-text citations within these papers. The findings of the study revealed a striking similarity between human and LLM citation patterns. However, it also uncovered a more pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4 compared to human patterns. This bias persisted even after controlling for variables such as publication year, title length, number of authors, and venue. Additionally, there was a significant consistency between the characteristics of existing references in GPT-4's database and those that were generated but did not exist previously. This suggests that the model has internalized citation patterns to a considerable extent. By analyzing citation graphs, the researchers demonstrated that the references recommended by GPT-4 were embedded within relevant citation contexts. This finding indicates a deeper conceptual internalization of citation networks by the model. While LLMs have the potential to aid in citation generation, they also have the capacity to amplify existing biases and introduce new ones that could skew scientific knowledge dissemination. Overall, this study underscores the importance of identifying and addressing biases within LLMs and emphasizes the need for developing balanced methods to interact with these models effectively. The research sheds light on how advancements in language models can impact scholarly communication and calls for continued scrutiny and refinement in utilizing LLMs within academic contexts.

• - **Study Focus**:
• - Authors studied the impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 on citation practices in scientific knowledge dissemination.
• - **Role of Citation Practices**:
• - Citation practices play a crucial role in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge.
• - These practices are influenced by contemporary norms and biases.
• - **Introduction of LLMs**:
• - LLMs like GPT-4 introduce a new dynamic to citation practices, recommending references based on parametric knowledge rather than search or retrieval-augmented generation.
• - **Experiment Details**:
• - Experiment used a dataset of 166 papers from prestigious conferences published after GPT-4's cut-off date, with a total of 3,066 references.
• - GPT-4 was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for anonymized in-text citations within these papers.
• - **Findings**:
• - Similarity between human and LLM citation patterns observed.
• - More pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4 compared to human patterns, even after controlling for variables like publication year and venue.
• - **Model Behavior**:
• - Model internalized citation patterns to a considerable extent.
• - References recommended by GPT-4 were embedded within relevant citation contexts, indicating deeper conceptual internalization of citation networks.
• - **Implications**:
• - LLMs have potential to aid in citation generation but can also amplify existing biases and introduce new ones that may skew scientific knowledge dissemination.
• - **Recommendations**:
• - Importance of identifying and addressing biases within LLMs emphasized.
• - Need for developing balanced methods to interact effectively with these models highlighted.

**Summary:** - Scientists studied how big language models like GPT-4 affect how research is shared. - Referencing other studies is important in science to build knowledge. - These models, like GPT-4, suggest which studies to reference based on what they know. - In an experiment, GPT-4 suggested references for research papers and behaved similarly to humans but showed some biases. - Using these models can help with citations but may also introduce new biases. ** Definitions:** - **Large Language Models (LLMs):** Big computer programs that help with writing and understanding language. - **Citation Practices:** Referring to other studies or sources in your own work to show where you got information from. - **Bias:** Unfair preferences or influences that can affect decisions or outcomes.

Introduction

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for natural language processing tasks. These models, such as GPT-4, are trained on vast amounts of text data and can generate human-like text with impressive accuracy. However, the use of LLMs in scientific knowledge dissemination has raised concerns about their potential impact on citation practices. Citation practices play a crucial role in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge. They serve as a means to acknowledge and give credit to previous research while also providing evidence for claims made in new studies. However, these practices are not immune to contemporary norms and biases. The introduction of LLMs introduces a new dynamic to citation practices. Unlike traditional methods that rely on search or retrieval-augmented generation, LLMs generate references based solely on parametric knowledge. This raises questions about the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by these models. To address this gap, researchers Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori, Sylvia Wenmackers, and Vincent Ginis conducted an experiment using a dataset comprising 166 papers from prestigious conferences such as AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML,and ICLR.

The Experiment

The selected papers were published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date and collectively included 3,066 references. In the experiment,the model was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for anonymized in-text citations within these papers. The findings revealed a striking similarity between human and LLM citation patterns.However,it also uncovered a more pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4 compared to human patterns.This bias persisted even after controlling for variables such as publication year,title length,number of authors,and venue.Additionally,a significant consistency was found between the characteristics of existing references in GPT-4's database and those that were generated but did not exist previously. This suggests that the model has internalized citation patterns to a considerable extent.

Implications

The results of this study have significant implications for scholarly communication. While LLMs have the potential to aid in citation generation, they also have the capacity to amplify existing biases and introduce new ones that could skew scientific knowledge dissemination. The high citation bias observed in GPT-4 raises concerns about its ability to recommend diverse and balanced references. This could lead to a reinforcement of certain ideas or perspectives while neglecting others, ultimately impacting the development and advancement of scientific knowledge. Moreover, the internalization of citation patterns by LLMs highlights their potential influence on shaping future research directions. As these models continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, it is essential to ensure that they are not perpetuating biased or limited perspectives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study conducted by Algaba et al. sheds light on how advancements in language models can impact scholarly communication. It highlights the need for continued scrutiny and refinement in utilizing LLMs within academic contexts. While these models offer exciting possibilities for improving efficiency and accuracy in citation practices, it is crucial to address any potential biases they may introduce. Further research is needed to develop balanced methods for interacting with LLMs effectively and mitigate any negative impacts on scientific knowledge dissemination. This study serves as a reminder that as technology continues to advance, we must remain vigilant in ensuring fair representation and diversity within our systems and processes. Only then can we truly harness the full potential of tools like LLMs without compromising on ethical principles.