arXiv:2603.28787v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Traditional liquid identification instruments are often unavailable to the general public. This paper shows the feasibility of identifying unknown liquids with commercial lightweight devices, such as a smartphone. The key insight is that different liquid molecules have different viscosity coefficients and therefore must overcome different energy barriers during relative motion. With this intuition in mind, we introduce a novel model that measures liquids' viscosity based on active vibration. However, building a robust system using built-in smartphone accelerometers is challenging. Practical issues include under-sampling, self-interference, and the impact of liquid-volume changes. Instead of machine learning, we tackle these issues through multiple signal processing stages to reconstruct the original signals and cancel out the interference. Our approach estimates liquid viscosity with a mean relative error of 2.9% and distinguishes 30 types of liquids with an average accuracy of 95.47%.

arXiv:2403.07183v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM). Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level. We apply this approach to a case study of scientific peer review in AI conferences that took place after the release of ChatGPT: ICLR 2024, NeurIPS 2023, CoRL 2023 and EMNLP 2023. Our results suggest that between 6.5% and 16.9% of text submitted as peer reviews to these conferences could have been substantially modified by LLMs, i.e. beyond spell-checking or minor writing updates. The circumstances in which generated text occurs offer insight into user behavior: the estimated fraction of LLM-generated text is higher in reviews which report lower confidence, were submitted close to the deadline, and from reviewers who are less likely to respond to author rebuttals. We also observe corpus-level trends in generated text which may be too subtle to detect at the individual level, and discuss the implications of such trends on peer review. We call for future interdisciplinary work to examine how LLM use is changing our information and knowledge practices.