Awes, Laws, and Flaws From Today’s LLM Research

We perform a critical examination of the scientific methodology behind contemporary large language model (LLM) research.For this we assess over 2,000 research works released between 2020 and 2024 based on criteria typical of what is considered good research (e.g.presence of statistical tests and reproducibility), and cross-validate it with arguments that are at the centre of controversy (e.g., claims of emergent behaviour).We find multiple trends, such as declines in ethics disclaimers, a rise of LLMs as evaluators, and an increase on claims of LLM reasoning abilities without leveraging human evaluation.We note that conference checklists are effective at curtailing some of these issues, but balancing velocity and rigour in research cannot solely rely on these.We tie all these findings to findings from recent meta-reviews and extend recommendations on how to address what does, does not, and should work in LLM research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.664
Primary Topic
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Awes, Laws, and Flaws From Today’s LLM Research

Adrian de Wynter
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
article

Awes, Laws, and Flaws From Today’s LLM Research

Adrian de Wynter
article en

Abstract

We perform a critical examination of the scientific methodology behind contemporary large language model (LLM) research.For this we assess over 2,000 research works released between 2020 and 2024 based on criteria typical of what is considered good research (e.g.presence of statistical tests and reproducibility), and cross-validate it with arguments that are at the centre of controversy (e.g., claims of emergent behaviour).We find multiple trends, such as declines in ethics disclaimers, a rise of LLMs as evaluators, and an increase on claims of LLM reasoning abilities without leveraging human evaluation.We note that conference checklists are effective at curtailing some of these issues, but balancing velocity and rigour in research cannot solely rely on these.We tie all these findings to findings from recent meta-reviews and extend recommendations on how to address what does, does not, and should work in LLM research.

Microsoft (United States) (US), Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.