← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWithout cards better91 / 280 · beu-1f033cd8c832f4c2

Applications of physics-informed scientific machine learning in subsurface science: A survey

Climate and environmental science · 2104.04764v2

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Applications of physics-informed scientific machine learning in subsurface science: A survey

5 Challenges and Future Directions > Model scalibility

…(EDX), to curate and preserve data for reuse and collaboration that supports the entire life cycle of data ( https://edx.netl.doe.gov/ ). Open Energy Information ( https://openei.org ) represents an example of community-driven platform for sharing energy data. However, challenges related to data Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR) remain to be solved. For example, government agencies or data publishers may have different definitions and data capturing processes. Comparing data on the same basis requires additional processing and deciphering ( Lackey et al., 2021 ) .

…f acquiring data, proprietary, and other reasons, companies often are hesitant to share their data to form a unified or centralized dataset for ML training. A new approach, federated learning, is emerging to address the data privacy issue ( Konečnỳ et al., 2016 ) . The approach trains an algorithm across decentralized models with their local datasets. Instead of sending the data to form a unified dataset, federated learning exchanges parameters among local models to generate a global model. This approach shows one way to solve the data issues in the subsurface fields to promote collaboration.

Geosystems are a type of high-dimensional dynamic systems. Image-based, deep learning algorithms originating from computer vision were

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: Without cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = with cards · B = without cards

Both outputs complete the sentence grammatically and maintain the academic register. Both correctly identify that computer vision algorithms were developed for 2D natural images and note challenges in applying them to geosystems (3D, time-varying subsurface data). Output B is slightly better because: (1) 'extending them to' is more precise than 'direct transfer to' since the draft says 'originating from' not 'directly transferred'; (2) B specifies concrete costs ('model size and computational cost of training') that explain *why* the extension is difficult, making it more informative for an academic reader; (3) B's 'time-evolving subsurface systems' better matches 'geosystems' from the opening clause than A's 'subsurface data.' A's 'remains limited' is vague about what exactly is limited and why. B provides more analytical substance without overreaching.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

originally developed for two-dimensional natural images, and their direct transfer to three-dimensional, time-varying subsurface data remains limited.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Distilled One-Shot Federated Learning

Current federated learning algorithms take tens of communication rounds transmitting unwieldy model weights under ideal circumstances and hundreds when data is poorly distributed. Inspired by recent work on dataset distillation and distributed one-shot learning, we propose Distilled One-Shot Federat…

Read full passage excerpt

Current federated learning algorithms take tens of communication rounds transmitting unwieldy model weights under ideal circumstances and hundreds when data is poorly distributed. Inspired by recent work on dataset distillation and distributed one-shot learning, we propose Distilled One-Shot Federated Learning (DOSFL) to significantly reduce the communication cost while achieving comparable performance. In just one round, each client distills their private dataset, sends the synthetic data (e.g. images or sentences) to the server, and collectively trains a global model. The distilled data look like noise and are only useful to the specific model weights, i.e., become useless after the model updates. With this weight-less and gradient-less design, the total communication cost of DOSFL is up to three orders of magnitude less than FedAvg while preserving between 93% to 99% performance of a centralized counterpart. Afterwards, clients could switch to traditional methods such as FedAvg to f …

Card 2 · A Blockchain-Based Decentralized Federated Learning Framework with Committee Consensus

Federated learning has been widely studied and applied to various scenarios, such as financial credit, medical identification, and so on. Under these settings, federated learning protects users from exposing their private data, while cooperatively training a shared machine learning algorithm model (…

Read full passage excerpt

Federated learning has been widely studied and applied to various scenarios, such as financial credit, medical identification, and so on. Under these settings, federated learning protects users from exposing their private data, while cooperatively training a shared machine learning algorithm model (i.e., the global model) for a variety of realworld applications. The only data exchanged is the gradient of the model or the updated model (i.e., the local model update). However, the security of federated learning is increasingly being questioned, due to the malicious clients or central servers' constant attack on the global model or user privacy data. To address these security issues, we propose a decentralized federated learning framework based on blockchain, that is, a Block-chain-based Federated Learning framework with Committee consensus (BFLC). Without a centralized server, the framework uses blockchain for the global model storage and the local model update exchange. To enable the pr …

Card 3 · Comprehensive Privacy Analysis of Deep Learning: Passive and Active White-box Inference Attacks against Centralized and Federated Learning

Deep neural networks are susceptible to various inference attacks as they remember information about their training data. We design white-box inference attacks to perform a comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning models. We measure the privacy leakage through parameters of fully trained mode…

Read full passage excerpt

Deep neural networks are susceptible to various inference attacks as they remember information about their training data. We design white-box inference attacks to perform a comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning models. We measure the privacy leakage through parameters of fully trained models as well as the parameter updates of models during training. We design inference algorithms for both centralized and federated learning, with respect to passive and active inference attackers, and assuming different adversary prior knowledge. We evaluate our novel white-box membership inference attacks against deep learning algorithms to trace their training data records. We show that a straightforward extension of the known black-box attacks to the white-box setting (through analyzing the outputs of activation functions) is ineffective. We therefore design new algorithms tailored to the white-box setting by exploiting the privacy vulnerabilities of the stochastic gradient descent algorith …

Card 4 · Federated Learning With Quantized Global Model Updates

We study federated learning (FL), which enables mobile devices to utilize their local datasets to collaboratively train a global model with the help of a central server, while keeping data localized. At each iteration, the server broadcasts the current global model to the devices for local training,…

Read full passage excerpt

We study federated learning (FL), which enables mobile devices to utilize their local datasets to collaboratively train a global model with the help of a central server, while keeping data localized. At each iteration, the server broadcasts the current global model to the devices for local training, and aggregates the local model updates from the devices to update the global model. Previous work on the communication efficiency of FL has mainly focused on the aggregation of model updates from the devices, assuming perfect broadcasting of the global model. In this paper, we instead consider broadcasting a compressed version of the global model. This is to further reduce the communication cost of FL, which can be particularly limited when the global model is to be transmitted over a wireless medium. We introduce a lossy FL (LFL) algorithm, in which both the global model and the local model updates are quantized before being transmitted. We analyze the convergence behavior of the proposed …

Card 5 · Think Locally, Act Globally: Federated Learning with Local and Global Representations

Federated learning is a method of training models on private data distributed over multiple devices. To keep device data private, the global model is trained by only communicating parameters and updates which poses scalability challenges for large models. To this end, we propose a new federated lear…

Read full passage excerpt

Federated learning is a method of training models on private data distributed over multiple devices. To keep device data private, the global model is trained by only communicating parameters and updates which poses scalability challenges for large models. To this end, we propose a new federated learning algorithm that jointly learns compact local representations on each device and a global model across all devices. As a result, the global model can be smaller since it only operates on local representations, reducing the number of communicated parameters. Theoretically, we provide a generalization analysis which shows that a combination of local and global models reduces both variance in the data as well as variance across device distributions. Empirically, we demonstrate that local models enable communication-efficient training while retaining performance. We also evaluate on the task of personalized mood prediction from real-world mobile data where privacy is key. Finally, local model …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

originally developed for two-dimensional natural images, and extending them to three-dimensional, time-evolving subsurface systems increases both the model size and the computational cost of training.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.