Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Sage Simhon

dblp:353/7754 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 50% Question answering and dialogue systems · 50%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › question generation
educational question generation
0.712023
From Human Days to Machine Seconds: Automatically Answering and Generating Machine Learning Final Exams · KDD 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.712023
From Human Days to Machine Seconds: Automatically Answering and Generating Machine Learning Final Exams · KDD 2023
Computing education
automated assessment
0.712023
From Human Days to Machine Seconds: Automatically Answering and Generating Machine Learning Final Exams · KDD 2023
Computing education › AI education
machine learning education
0.212023
From Human Days to Machine Seconds: Automatically Answering and Generating Machine Learning Final Exams · KDD 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

zero-shot learning · 1.3few-shot learning · 1.3chain-of-thought prompting · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 From Human Days to Machine Seconds: Automatically Answering and Generating Machine Learning Final Exams
abstract
A final exam in machine learning at a top institution such as MIT, Harvard, or Cornell typically takes faculty days to write, and students hours to solve. We demonstrate that large language models pass machine learning finals at a human level on finals available online and automatically generate new human-quality final exam questions in seconds. Previous work has developed program synthesis and few-shot learning methods to solve university-level problem set questions in mathematics and STEM courses. In this work, we develop and compare methods that solve final exams, which differ from problem sets in several ways: the questions are longer, have multiple parts, are more complicated, and span a broader set of topics. We curate a dataset and benchmark of questions from machine learning final exams available online and code for answering these questions and generating new questions. We show how to generate new questions from other questions and course notes. For reproducibility and future research on this final exam benchmark, we use automatic checkers for multiple-choice, numeric, and questions with expression answers. A student survey comparing the quality, appropriateness, and difficulty of machine-generated questions with human-written questions shows that across multiple aspects, machine-generated questions are indistinguishable from human-generated questions and are suitable for final exams. We perform ablation studies comparing zero-shot learning with few-shot learning and chain-of-thought prompting using GPT-3, OPT, Codex, and ChatGPT across machine learning topics and find that few-shot learning methods perform best. We highlight the transformative potential of language models to streamline the writing and solution of large-scale assessments, significantly reducing the workload from human days to mere machine seconds. Our results suggest that rather than banning large language models such as ChatGPT in class, instructors should teach students to harness them by asking students meta-questions about correctness, completeness, and originality of the responses generated, encouraging critical thinking in academic studies.
Iddo Drori, Sarah J. Zhang, Reece Shuttleworth, Sarah Zhang, Keith Tyser, Zad Chin, Pedro Lantigua, Saisamrit Surbehera, Gregory Hunter, Derek Austin, Leonard Tang, Yann Hicke, Sage Simhon, Sathwik Karnik, Darnell Granberry, Madeleine Udell
KDD13