← 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 better231 / 280 · beu-9af40a9c9ab1091e

Climate Change & Computer Audition: A Call to Action and Overview on Audio Intelligence to Help Save the Planet

Climate and environmental science · 2203.06064v1

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

Climate Change & Computer Audition: A Call to Action and Overview on Audio Intelligence to Help Save the Planet

8 Discussion > 8.3 Efficiency

…ary AI applications. Bigger and better data usually leads to bigger and better models, which require (vastly) more computational power to be trained ( Schwartz et al., 2020 ) . This trend places a significant, and ever increasing, strain on the world’s resources ( Strubell et al., 2019b ) ; a potentially flagrant oversight when creating models that attempt to reduce that strain. Moreover, inconsiderate pursuit for more (sources of) data can potentially compromise privacy and democracy ( Yu, 2016 ; Helbing et al., 2019 ) , both pillars of the social cohesion necessary to tackle climate change.

…learning paradigms that may be of use here are those of transfer learning ( Pan and Yang, 2009 ) and zero-shot learning ( Wang et al., 2019 ; Xie and Virtanen, 2021 ) : the former corresponds to transferring knowledge from other tasks, usually ones for which data is abundant; the latter to generalising to classes unseen during training. However, while both these paradigms have been successfully utilised in several applications, further work is needed to understand in more detail how they work and streamline their application ( Neyshabur et al., 2020 ; Triantafyllopoulos and Schuller, 2021 ) .

↓ 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

The draft ends with a paragraph discussing transfer learning and zero-shot learning, noting that 'further work is needed to understand in more detail how they work and streamline their application.' This is a natural concluding observation for this section. The paragraph makes a complete argumentative move: it introduces two promising paradigms, acknowledges their successes, and identifies the open challenge. Continuing with another paragraph would risk redundancy or speculative extension without a clear next move signaled in the text. Output B appropriately abstains with 'complete' since the draft already reaches a coherent stopping point. Output A is invalid due to the contradictory action field ('invalid' is not a valid action per the rules, and the JSON structure shows 'action':'invalid' which makes it unusable regardless of content).

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

No continuation text was produced.

Model action:invalid

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · A Multi-class Approach -- Building a Visual Classifier based on Textual Descriptions using Zero-Shot Learning

Machine Learning (ML) techniques for image classification routinely require many labelled images for training the model and while testing, we ought to use images belonging to the same domain as those used for training. In this paper, we overcome the two main hurdles of ML, i.e. scarcity of data and…

Read full passage excerpt

Machine Learning (ML) techniques for image classification routinely require many labelled images for training the model and while testing, we ought to use images belonging to the same domain as those used for training. In this paper, we overcome the two main hurdles of ML, i.e. scarcity of data and constrained prediction of the classification model. We do this by introducing a visual classifier which uses a concept of transfer learning, namely Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL), and standard Natural Language Processing techniques. We train a classifier by mapping labelled images to their textual description instead of training it for specific classes. Transfer learning involves transferring knowledge across domains that are similar. ZSL intelligently applies the knowledge learned while training for future recognition tasks. ZSL differentiates classes as two types: seen and unseen classes. Seen classes are the classes upon which we have trained our model and unseen classes are the classes upon wh …

Card 2 · Human-centric Transfer Learning Explanation via Knowledge Graph [Extended Abstract]

Transfer learning which aims at utilizing knowledge learned from one problem (source domain) to solve another different but related problem (target domain) has attracted wide research attentions. However, the current transfer learning methods are mostly uninterpretable, especially to people without…

Read full passage excerpt

Transfer learning which aims at utilizing knowledge learned from one problem (source domain) to solve another different but related problem (target domain) has attracted wide research attentions. However, the current transfer learning methods are mostly uninterpretable, especially to people without ML expertise. In this extended abstract, we brief introduce two knowledge graph (KG) based frameworks towards human understandable transfer learning explanation. The first one explains the transferability of features learned by Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) from one domain to another through pre-training and fine-tuning, while the second justifies the model of a target domain predicted by models from multiple source domains in zero-shot learning (ZSL). Both methods utilize KG and its reasoning capability to provide rich and human understandable explanations to the transfer procedure.

Card 3 · Transductive Multi-View Zero-Shot Learning

Most existing zero-shot learning approaches exploit transfer learning via an intermediate semantic representation shared between an annotated auxiliary dataset and a target dataset with different classes and no annotation. A projection from a low-level feature space to the semantic representation sp…

Read full passage excerpt

Most existing zero-shot learning approaches exploit transfer learning via an intermediate semantic representation shared between an annotated auxiliary dataset and a target dataset with different classes and no annotation. A projection from a low-level feature space to the semantic representation space is learned from the auxiliary dataset and applied without adaptation to the target dataset. In this paper we identify two inherent limitations with these approaches. First, due to having disjoint and potentially unrelated classes, the projection functions learned from the auxiliary dataset/domain are biased when applied directly to the target dataset/domain. We call this problem the projection domain shift problem and propose a novel framework, transductive multi-view embedding, to solve it. The second limitation is the prototype sparsity problem which refers to the fact that for each target class, only a single prototype is available for zero-shot learning given a semantic representatio …

Card 4 · Zero-Shot Learning with Generative Latent Prototype Model

Zero-shot learning, which studies the problem of object classification for categories for which we have no training examples, is gaining increasing attention from community. Most existing ZSL methods exploit deterministic transfer learning via an in-between semantic embedding space. In this paper, w…

Read full passage excerpt

Zero-shot learning, which studies the problem of object classification for categories for which we have no training examples, is gaining increasing attention from community. Most existing ZSL methods exploit deterministic transfer learning via an in-between semantic embedding space. In this paper, we try to attack this problem from a generative probabilistic modelling perspective. We assume for any category, the observed representation, e.g. images or texts, is developed from a unique prototype in a latent space, in which the semantic relationship among prototypes is encoded via linear reconstruction. Taking advantage of this assumption, virtual instances of unseen classes can be generated from the corresponding prototype, giving rise to a novel ZSL model which can alleviate the domain shift problem existing in the way of direct transfer learning. Extensive experiments on three benchmark datasets show our proposed model can achieve state-of-the-art results.

Card 5 · Multi-Class Zero-Shot Learning for Artistic Material Recognition

Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) is an extreme form of transfer learning, where no labelled examples of the data to be classified are provided during the training stage. Instead, ZSL uses additional information learned about the domain, and relies upon transfer learning algorithms to infer knowledge about t…

Read full passage excerpt

Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) is an extreme form of transfer learning, where no labelled examples of the data to be classified are provided during the training stage. Instead, ZSL uses additional information learned about the domain, and relies upon transfer learning algorithms to infer knowledge about the missing instances. ZSL approaches are an attractive solution for sparse datasets. Here we outline a model to identify the materials with which a work of art was created, by learning the relationship between English descriptions of the subject of a piece and its composite materials. After experimenting with a range of hyper-parameters, we produce a model which is capable of correctly identifying the materials used on pieces from an entirely distinct museum dataset. This model returned a classification accuracy of 48.42% on 5,000 artworks taken from the Tate collection, which is distinct from the Rijksmuseum network used to create and train our model.

Model-reported card use

Card 5 · fact

Affected output: Zero-shot learning has been applied to multi-class problems beyond the binary case, for instance in recognising the materials of artworks from textual descriptions of their subject matter, where a model trained on one museum's collection generalised to a distinct collection with an accuracy of 48.42%

Model explanation: This row supplied the concrete prior application and the 48.42% cross-museum accuracy figure, giving the discussion a specific evidence-grounded example of zero-shot learning rather than a generic claim.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

No continuation text was produced.

Model action:complete

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.

The with-card arm returned a card-use record but no continuation text. It is excluded from reported use with text and remains in all 280 first attempts.

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.