Search

The quest for new information is an inborn human trait and has always been quintessential for human survival and progress. Novelty drives curiosity, which in turn drives innovation. In Natural Language Processing (NLP), Novelty Detection refers to finding text that has some new information to offer with respect to whatever is earlier seen or known. With the exponential growth of information all across the Web, there is an accompanying menace of redundancy. A considerable portion of the Web contents are duplicates, and we need efficient mechanisms to retain new information and filter out redundant information. However, detecting redundancy at the semantic level and identifying novel text is not straightforward because the text may have less lexical overlap yet convey the same information. On top of that, non-novel/redundant information in a document may have assimilated from multiple source documents, not just one. The problem surmounts when the subject of the discourse is documents, and numerous prior documents need to be processed to ascertain the novelty/non-novelty of the current one in concern. In this work, we build upon our earlier investigations for document-level novelty detection and present a comprehensive account of our efforts toward the problem. We explore the role of pre-trained Textual Entailment (TE) models to deal with multiple source contexts and present the outcome of our current investigations. We argue that a multipremise entailment task is one close approximation toward identifying semantic-level non-novelty. Our recent approach either performs comparably or achieves significant improvement over the latest reported results on several datasets and across several related tasks (paraphrasing, plagiarism, rewrite). We critically analyze our performance with respect to the existing state of the art and show the superiority and promise of our approach for future investigations. We also present our enhanced dataset TAP-DLND 2.0 and several baselines to the community for further research on document-level novelty detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and quality. These problems could also be due to the lack of studies with the peer-review texts for various proprietary and confidentiality clauses. Peer review texts could serve as a rich source of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on understanding the scholarly communication landscape, and thereby build systems towards mitigating those pertinent problems. In this work, we present a first of its kind multi-layered dataset of 1199 open peer review texts manually annotated at the sentence level (∼ 17k sentences) across the four layers, viz. Paper Section Correspondence, Paper Aspect Category, Review Functionality, and Review Significance. Given a text written by the reviewer, we annotate: to which sections (e.g., Methodology, Experiments, etc.), what aspects (e.g., Originality/Novelty, Empirical/Theoretical Soundness, etc.) of the paper does the review text correspond to, what is the role played by the review text (e.g., appreciation, criticism, summary, etc.), and the importance of the review statement (major, minor, general) within the review. We also annotate the sentiment of the reviewer (positive, negative, neutral) for the first two layers to judge the reviewer's perspective on the different sections and aspects of the paper. We further introduce four novel tasks with this dataset, which could serve as an indicator of the exhaustiveness of a peer review and can be a step towards the automatic judgment of review quality. We also present baseline experiments and results for the different tasks for further investigations. We believe our dataset would provide a benchmark experimental testbed for automated systems to leverage on current NLP state-of-the-art techniques to address different issues with peer review quality, thereby ushering increased transparency and trust on the holy grail of scientific research validation. Our dataset and associated codes are available at https://www.iitp.ac.in/~ai-nlp-ml/resources.html#Peer-Review-Analyze. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detecting, whether a document contains sufficient new information to be deemed as novel, is of immense significance in this age of data duplication. Existing techniques for document-level novelty detection mostly perform at the lexical level and are unable to address the semantic-level redundancy. These techniques usually rely on handcrafted features extracted from the documents in a rule-based or traditional feature-based machine learning setup. Here, we present an effective approach based on neural attention mechanism to detect document-level novelty without any manual feature engineering. We contend that the simple alignment of texts between the source and target document(s) could identify the state of novelty of a target document. Our deep neural architecture elicits inference knowledge from a large-scale natural language inference dataset, which proves crucial to the novelty detection task. Our approach is effective and outperforms the standard baselines and recent work on document-level novelty detection by a margin of $\sim$ 3% in terms of accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing volume of scientific literature makes it difficult for researchers to identify the key contributions of a research paper. Automating this process would facilitate efficient understanding, faster literature surveys and comparisons. The automated process may help researchers to identify relevant and impactful information in less time and effort. In this article, we address the challenge of identifying the contributions in research articles. We propose a method that infuses factual knowledge from a scientific knowledge graph into a pre-trained model. We divide the knowledge graph into mutually exclusive subgroups and infuse the knowledge in the pre-trained model using adapters. We also construct a scientific knowledge graph consisting of 3,600 Natural Language Processing (NLP) papers to acquire factual knowledge. In addition, we annotate a new test set to evaluate the model’s ability to identify sentences that make significant contributions to the papers. Our model achieves the best performance in comparison to previous methods with a relative improvement of 40.06% and 25.28% in terms of F1 score for identifying contributing sentences in the NLPContributionGraph (NCG) test set and the newly annotated test set, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an increasing trend to represent domain knowledge in structured graphs, which provide efficient knowledge representations for many downstream tasks. Knowledge graphs are widely used to model prior knowledge in the form of nodes and edges to represent semantically connected knowledge entities, which several works have adopted into different medical imaging applications., Methods: We systematically searched over five databases to find relevant articles that applied knowledge graphs to medical imaging analysis. After screening, evaluating, and reviewing the selected articles, we performed a systematic analysis., Results: We looked at four applications in medical imaging analysis, including disease classification, disease localization and segmentation, report generation, and image retrieval. We also identified limitations of current work, such as the limited amount of available annotated data and weak generalizability to other tasks. We further identified the potential future directions according to the identified limitations, including employing semisupervised frameworks to alleviate the need for annotated data and exploring task-agnostic models to provide better generalizability., Conclusions: We hope that our article will provide the readers with aggregated documentation of the state-of-the-art knowledge graph applications for medical imaging to encourage future research., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.