Search

This paper presents Papilusion, an AI-generated scientific text detector developed within the DAGPap24 shared task on detecting automatically generated scientific papers. We propose an ensemble-based approach and conduct ablation studies to analyze the effect of the detector configurations on the performance. Papilusion is ranked 6th on the leaderboard, and we improve our performance after the competition ended, achieving 99.46 (+9.63) of the F1-score on the official test set., Comment: to appear in "The 4th Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing @ ACL 2024" proceedings

Machine learning is widely utilized across various industries. Identifying the appropriate machine learning models and datasets for specific tasks is crucial for the effective industrial application of machine learning. However, this requires expertise in both machine learning and the relevant domain, leading to a high learning cost. Therefore, research focused on extracting combinations of tasks, machine learning models, and datasets from academic papers is critically important, as it can facilitate the automatic recommendation of suitable methods. Conventional information extraction methods from academic papers have been limited to identifying machine learning models and other entities as named entities. To address this issue, this study proposes a methodology extracting tasks, machine learning methods, and dataset names from scientific papers and analyzing the relationships between these information by using LLM, embedding model, and network clustering. The proposed method's expression extraction performance, when using Llama3, achieves an F-score exceeding 0.8 across various categories, confirming its practical utility. Benchmarking results on financial domain papers have demonstrated the effectiveness of this method, providing insights into the use of the latest datasets, including those related to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) data., Comment: 10 pages, 8 figures

Seeking answers to questions within long scientific research articles is a crucial area of study that aids readers in quickly addressing their inquiries. However, existing question-answering (QA) datasets based on scientific papers are limited in scale and focus solely on textual content. To address this limitation, we introduce SPIQA (Scientific Paper Image Question Answering), the first large-scale QA dataset specifically designed to interpret complex figures and tables within the context of scientific research articles across various domains of computer science. Leveraging the breadth of expertise and ability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to understand figures, we employ automatic and manual curation to create the dataset. We craft an information-seeking task involving multiple images that cover a wide variety of plots, charts, tables, schematic diagrams, and result visualizations. SPIQA comprises 270K questions divided into training, validation, and three different evaluation splits. Through extensive experiments with 12 prominent foundational models, we evaluate the ability of current multimodal systems to comprehend the nuanced aspects of research articles. Additionally, we propose a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) evaluation strategy with in-context retrieval that allows fine-grained, step-by-step assessment and improves model performance. We further explore the upper bounds of performance enhancement with additional textual information, highlighting its promising potential for future research and the dataset's impact on revolutionizing how we interact with scientific literature., Comment: preprint

In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated scientific reviewing, their generated contents are often generic or partial. To address the issues above, we introduce an automated paper reviewing framework SEA. It comprises of three modules: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis, which are represented by models SEA-S, SEA-E, and SEA-A, respectively. Initially, SEA-S distills data standardization capabilities of GPT-4 for integrating multiple reviews for a paper. Then, SEA-E utilizes standardized data for fine-tuning, enabling it to generate constructive reviews. Finally, SEA-A introduces a new evaluation metric called mismatch score to assess the consistency between paper contents and reviews. Moreover, we design a self-correction strategy to enhance the consistency. Extensive experimental results on datasets collected from eight venues show that SEA can generate valuable insights for authors to improve their papers.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs), have significantly enhanced text analysis capabilities. This technological evolution offers considerable promise for automating the review of scientific papers, a task traditionally managed through peer review by fellow researchers. Despite its critical role in maintaining research quality, the conventional peer-review process is often slow and subject to biases, potentially impeding the swift propagation of scientific knowledge. In this paper, we propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem, aimed at assessing the relevance of a paper in relation to a specified prompt, analogous to a "call for papers". To address this, we introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. The objective is to develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one. We explore various baseline approaches, including traditional ML classifiers like Support Vector Machine (SVM) and advanced language models such as BERT. Preliminary findings indicate that the BERT-based end-to-end classifier surpasses other conventional ML methods in performance. We present this problem as a public challenge to foster engagement and interest in this area of research.

An emerging area of research in situated and multimodal interactive conversations (SIMMC) includes interactions in scientific papers. Since scientific papers are primarily composed of text, equations, figures, and tables, SIMMC methods must be developed specifically for each component to support the depth of inquiry and interactions required by research scientists. This work introduces Conversational Papers (cPAPERS), a dataset of conversational question-answer pairs from reviews of academic papers grounded in these paper components and their associated references from scientific documents available on arXiv. We present a data collection strategy to collect these question-answer pairs from OpenReview and associate them with contextual information from LaTeX source files. Additionally, we present a series of baseline approaches utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) in both zero-shot and fine-tuned configurations to address the cPAPERS dataset., Comment: 14 pages, 1 figure

Equitable urban transportation applications require high-fidelity digital representations of the built environment: not just streets and sidewalks, but bike lanes, marked and unmarked crossings, curb ramps and cuts, obstructions, traffic signals, signage, street markings, potholes, and more. Direct inspections and manual annotations are prohibitively expensive at scale. Conventional machine learning methods require substantial annotated training data for adequate performance. In this paper, we consider vision language models as a mechanism for annotating diverse urban features from satellite images, reducing the dependence on human annotation to produce large training sets. While these models have achieved impressive results in describing common objects in images captured from a human perspective, their training sets are less likely to include strong signals for esoteric features in the built environment, and their performance in these settings is therefore unclear. We demonstrate proof-of-concept combining a state-of-the-art vision language model and variants of a prompting strategy that asks the model to consider segmented elements independently of the original image. Experiments on two urban features -- stop lines and raised tables -- show that while direct zero-shot prompting correctly annotates nearly zero images, the pre-segmentation strategies can annotate images with near 40% intersection-over-union accuracy. We describe how these results inform a new research agenda in automatic annotation of the built environment to improve equity, accessibility, and safety at broad scale and in diverse environments.

We introduce the sequence classification problem CIViC Evidence to the field of medical NLP. CIViC Evidence denotes the multi-label classification problem of assigning labels of clinical evidence to abstracts of scientific papers which have examined various combinations of genomic variants, cancer types, and treatment approaches. We approach CIViC Evidence using different language models: We fine-tune pretrained checkpoints of BERT and RoBERTa on the CIViC Evidence dataset and challenge their performance with models of the same architecture which have been pretrained on domain-specific text. In this context, we find that BiomedBERT and BioLinkBERT can outperform BERT on CIViC Evidence (+0.8% and +0.9% absolute improvement in class-support weighted F1 score). All transformer-based models show a clear performance edge when compared to a logistic regression trained on bigram tf-idf scores (+1.5 - 2.7% improved F1 score). We compare the aforementioned BERT-like models to OpenAI's GPT-4 in a few-shot setting (on a small subset of our original test dataset), demonstrating that, without additional prompt-engineering or fine-tuning, GPT-4 performs worse on CIViC Evidence than our six fine-tuned models (66.1% weighted F1 score compared to 71.8% for the best fine-tuned model). However, performance gets reasonably close to the benchmark of a logistic regression model trained on bigram tf-idf scores (67.7% weighted F1 score).

With the rapid growth of scholarly archives, researchers subscribe to "paper alert" systems that periodically provide them with recommendations of recently published papers that are similar to previously collected papers. However, researchers sometimes struggle to make sense of nuanced connections between recommended papers and their own research context, as existing systems only present paper titles and abstracts. To help researchers spot these connections, we present PaperWeaver, an enriched paper alerts system that provides contextualized text descriptions of recommended papers based on user-collected papers. PaperWeaver employs a computational method based on Large Language Models (LLMs) to infer users' research interests from their collected papers, extract context-specific aspects of papers, and compare recommended and collected papers on these aspects. Our user study (N=15) showed that participants using PaperWeaver were able to better understand the relevance of recommended papers and triage them more confidently when compared to a baseline that presented the related work sections from recommended papers., Comment: Accepted to CHI 2024

Flattery is an important aspect of human communication that facilitates social bonding, shapes perceptions, and influences behavior through strategic compliments and praise, leveraging the power of speech to build rapport effectively. Its automatic detection can thus enhance the naturalness of human-AI interactions. To meet this need, we present a novel audio textual dataset comprising 20 hours of speech and train machine learning models for automatic flattery detection. In particular, we employ pretrained AST, Wav2Vec2, and Whisper models for the speech modality, and Whisper TTS models combined with a RoBERTa text classifier for the textual modality. Subsequently, we build a multimodal classifier by combining text and audio representations. Evaluation on unseen test data demonstrates promising results, with Unweighted Average Recall scores reaching 82.46% in audio-only experiments, 85.97% in text-only experiments, and 87.16% using a multimodal approach., Comment: Interspeech 2024

The paper discusses the creation of a multimodal dataset of Russian-language scientific papers and testing of existing language models for the task of automatic text summarization. A feature of the dataset is its multimodal data, which includes texts, tables and figures. The paper presents the results of experiments with two language models: Gigachat from SBER and YandexGPT from Yandex. The dataset consists of 420 papers and is publicly available on https://github.com/iis-research-team/summarization-dataset., Comment: 12 pages, accepted to AINL

Citation text plays a pivotal role in elucidating the connection between scientific documents, demanding an in-depth comprehension of the cited paper. Constructing citations is often time-consuming, requiring researchers to delve into extensive literature and grapple with articulating relevant content. To address this challenge, the field of citation text generation (CTG) has emerged. However, while earlier methods have primarily centered on creating single-sentence citations, practical scenarios frequently necessitate citing multiple papers within a single paragraph. To bridge this gap, we propose a method that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate multi-citation sentences. Our approach involves a single source paper and a collection of target papers, culminating in a coherent paragraph containing multi-sentence citation text. Furthermore, we introduce a curated dataset named MCG-S2ORC, composed of English-language academic research papers in Computer Science, showcasing multiple citation instances. In our experiments, we evaluate three LLMs LLaMA, Alpaca, and Vicuna to ascertain the most effective model for this endeavor. Additionally, we exhibit enhanced performance by integrating knowledge graphs from target papers into the prompts for generating citation text. This research underscores the potential of harnessing LLMs for citation generation, opening a compelling avenue for exploring the intricate connections between scientific documents., Comment: 14 pages, 7 figures, 11th International Conference, BDA 2023, Delhi, India

Scientific publishing lays the foundation of science by disseminating research findings, fostering collaboration, encouraging reproducibility, and ensuring that scientific knowledge is accessible, verifiable, and built upon over time. Recently, there has been immense speculation about how many people are using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in their academic writing, and to what extent this tool might have an effect on global scientific practices. However, we lack a precise measure of the proportion of academic writing substantially modified or produced by LLMs. To address this gap, we conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals, using a population-level statistical framework to measure the prevalence of LLM-modified content over time. Our statistical estimation operates on the corpus level and is more robust than inference on individual instances. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers (up to 17.5%). In comparison, Mathematics papers and the Nature portfolio showed the least LLM modification (up to 6.3%). Moreover, at an aggregate level, our analysis reveals that higher levels of LLM-modification are associated with papers whose first authors post preprints more frequently, papers in more crowded research areas, and papers of shorter lengths. Our findings suggests that LLMs are being broadly used in scientific writings.

Examining limitations is a crucial step in the scholarly research reviewing process, revealing aspects where a study might lack decisiveness or require enhancement. This aids readers in considering broader implications for further research. In this article, we present a novel and challenging task of Suggestive Limitation Generation (SLG) for research papers. We compile a dataset called \textbf{\textit{LimGen}}, encompassing 4068 research papers and their associated limitations from the ACL anthology. We investigate several approaches to harness large language models (LLMs) for producing suggestive limitations, by thoroughly examining the related challenges, practical insights, and potential opportunities. Our LimGen dataset and code can be accessed at \url{https://github.com/arbmf/LimGen}., Comment: Accepted at ECML-PKDD 2024

Communicating design implications is common within the HCI community when publishing academic papers, yet these papers are rarely read and used by designers. One solution is to use design cards as a form of translational resource that communicates valuable insights from papers in a more digestible and accessible format to assist in design processes. However, creating design cards can be time-consuming, and authors may lack the resources/know-how to produce cards. Through an iterative design process, we built a system that helps create design cards from academic papers using an LLM and text-to-image model. Our evaluation with designers (N=21) and authors of selected papers (N=12) revealed that designers perceived the design implications from our design cards as more inspiring and generative, compared to reading original paper texts, and the authors viewed our system as an effective way of communicating their design implications. We also propose future enhancements for AI-generated design cards.

After last year's successful BabyLM Challenge, the competition will be hosted again in 2024/2025. The overarching goals of the challenge remain the same; however, some of the competition rules will be different. The big changes for this year's competition are as follows: First, we replace the loose track with a paper track, which allows (for example) non-model-based submissions, novel cognitively-inspired benchmarks, or analysis techniques. Second, we are relaxing the rules around pretraining data, and will now allow participants to construct their own datasets provided they stay within the 100M-word or 10M-word budget. Third, we introduce a multimodal vision-and-language track, and will release a corpus of 50% text-only and 50% image-text multimodal data as a starting point for LM model training. The purpose of this CfP is to provide rules for this year's challenge, explain these rule changes and their rationale in greater detail, give a timeline of this year's competition, and provide answers to frequently asked questions from last year's challenge.

Over the course of the recent decade, tremendous progress has been made in the areas of machine learning and natural language processing, which opened up vast areas of potential application use cases, including hiring and human resource management. We review the use cases for text analytics in the realm of human resources/personnel management, including actually realized as well as potential but not yet implemented ones, and we analyze the opportunities and risks of these., Comment: 10 pages, 2 figures, 1 table

Due to the rapid pace of research publications, keeping up to date with all the latest related papers is very time-consuming, even with daily feed tools. There is a need for automatically generated, short, customized literature reviews of sets of papers to help researchers decide what to read. While several works in the last decade have addressed the task of explaining a single research paper, usually in the context of another paper citing it, the relationship among multiple papers has been ignored; prior works have focused on generating a single citation sentence in isolation, without addressing the expository and transition sentences needed to connect multiple papers in a coherent story. In this work, we explore a feature-based, LLM-prompting approach to generate richer citation texts, as well as generating multiple citations at once to capture the complex relationships among research papers. We perform an expert evaluation to investigate the impact of our proposed features on the quality of the generated paragraphs and find a strong correlation between human preference and integrative writing style, suggesting that humans prefer high-level, abstract citations, with transition sentences between them to provide an overall story.

As new research on Large Language Models (LLMs) continues, it is difficult to keep up with new research and models. To help researchers synthesize the new research many have written survey papers, but even those have become numerous. In this paper, we develop a method to automatically assign survey papers to a taxonomy. We collect the metadata of 144 LLM survey papers and explore three paradigms to classify papers within the taxonomy. Our work indicates that leveraging graph structure information on co-category graphs can significantly outperform the language models in two paradigms; pre-trained language models' fine-tuning and zero-shot/few-shot classifications using LLMs. We find that our model surpasses an average human recognition level and that fine-tuning LLMs using weak labels generated by a smaller model, such as the GCN in this study, can be more effective than using ground-truth labels, revealing the potential of weak-to-strong generalization in the taxonomy classification task., Comment: TL;DR: We collected metadata about LLM surveys and developed a method for categorizing them into a taxonomy, indicating the superiority of graph representation learning over language models and revealing the efficacy of fine-tuning using weak labels

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe impacts on health systems worldwide. Its critical nature and the increased interest of individuals and organizations to develop countermeasures to the problem has led to a surge of new studies in scientific journals. Objetive: We sought to develop a tool that incorporates, in a novel way, aspects of Information Retrieval (IR) and Extraction (IE) applied to the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19). The main focus of this paper is to provide researchers with a better search tool for COVID-19 related papers, helping them find reference papers and hightlight relevant entities in text. Method: We applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to model, based on research aspects, the topics of all English abstracts in CORD-19. Relevant named entities of each abstract were extracted and linked to the corresponding UMLS concept. Regular expressions and the K-Nearest Neighbors algorithm were used to rank relevant papers. Results: Our tool has shown the potential to assist researchers by automating a topic-based search of CORD-19 papers. Nonetheless, we identified that more fine-tuned topic modeling parameters and increased accuracy of the research aspect classifier model could lead to a more accurate and reliable tool. Conclusion: We emphasize the need of new automated tools to help researchers find relevant COVID-19 documents, in addition to automatically extracting useful information contained in them. Our work suggests that combining different algorithms and models could lead to new ways of browsing COVID-19 paper data.

We study the ability of LLMs to generate feedback for scientific papers and develop MARG, a feedback generation approach using multiple LLM instances that engage in internal discussion. By distributing paper text across agents, MARG can consume the full text of papers beyond the input length limitations of the base LLM, and by specializing agents and incorporating sub-tasks tailored to different comment types (experiments, clarity, impact) it improves the helpfulness and specificity of feedback. In a user study, baseline methods using GPT-4 were rated as producing generic or very generic comments more than half the time, and only 1.7 comments per paper were rated as good overall in the best baseline. Our system substantially improves the ability of GPT-4 to generate specific and helpful feedback, reducing the rate of generic comments from 60% to 29% and generating 3.7 good comments per paper (a 2.2x improvement).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has witnessed rapid growth, especially in the subfields Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML) and Computer Vision (CV). Keeping pace with this rapid progress poses a considerable challenge for researchers and professionals in the field. In this arXiv report, the second of its kind, which covers the period from January to September 2023, we aim to provide insights and analysis that help navigate these dynamic areas of AI. We accomplish this by 1) identifying the top-40 most cited papers from arXiv in the given period, comparing the current top-40 papers to the previous report, which covered the period January to June; 2) analyzing dataset characteristics and keyword popularity; 3) examining the global sectoral distribution of institutions to reveal differences in engagement across geographical areas. Our findings highlight the continued dominance of NLP: while only 16% of all submitted papers have NLP as primary category (more than 25% have CV and ML as primary category), 50% of the most cited papers have NLP as primary category, 90% of which target LLMs. Additionally, we show that i) the US dominates among both top-40 and top-9k papers, followed by China; ii) Europe clearly lags behind and is hardly represented in the top-40 most cited papers; iii) US industry is largely overrepresented in the top-40 most influential papers.

The automatic identification of planetary feature names in astronomy publications presents numerous challenges. These features include craters, defined as roughly circular depressions resulting from impact or volcanic activity; dorsas, which are elongate raised structures or wrinkle ridges; and lacus, small irregular patches of dark, smooth material on the Moon, referred to as "lake" (Planetary Names Working Group, n.d.). Many feature names overlap with places or people's names that they are named after, for example, Syria, Tempe, Einstein, and Sagan, to name a few (U.S. Geological Survey, n.d.). Some feature names have been used in many contexts, for instance, Apollo, which can refer to mission, program, sample, astronaut, seismic, seismometers, core, era, data, collection, instrument, and station, in addition to the crater on the Moon. Some feature names can appear in the text as adjectives, like the lunar craters Black, Green, and White. Some feature names in other contexts serve as directions, like craters West and South on the Moon. Additionally, some features share identical names across different celestial bodies, requiring disambiguation, such as the Adams crater, which exists on both the Moon and Mars. We present a multi-step pipeline combining rule-based filtering, statistical relevance analysis, part-of-speech (POS) tagging, named entity recognition (NER) model, hybrid keyword harvesting, knowledge graph (KG) matching, and inference with a locally installed large language model (LLM) to reliably identify planetary names despite these challenges. When evaluated on a dataset of astronomy papers from the Astrophysics Data System (ADS), this methodology achieves an F1-score over 0.97 in disambiguating planetary feature names.

With the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT, the field of large language models (LLM) saw an increase of academic interest in GPT based chat assistants. In the next few months multiple accesible large language models were released that included Meta's LLama models and Mistral AI's Mistral and Mixtral MoE models. These models are available openly for a wide array of purposes with a wide spectrum of licenses. These LLMs have found their use in a different number of fields like code development, SQL generation etc. In this work we propose our plan to explore the applicability of large language model in the domain of network security. We plan to create Sentinel, a LLM, to analyse network packet contents and pass a judgment on it's threat level. This work is a preliminary report that will lay our plan for our future endeavors.

Compositional generalization is one of the main properties which differentiates lexical learning in humans from state-of-art neural networks. We propose a general framework for building models that can generalize compositionally using the concept of Generalized Grammar Rules (GGRs), a class of symmetry-based compositional constraints for transduction tasks, which we view as a transduction analogue of equivariance constraints in physics-inspired tasks. Besides formalizing generalized notions of symmetry for language transduction, our framework is general enough to contain many existing works as special cases. We present ideas on how GGRs might be implemented, and in the process draw connections to reinforcement learning and other areas of research., Comment: 12 pages

With the Open Science approach becoming important for research, the evolution towards open scientific-paper reviews is making an impact on the scientific community. However, there is a lack of publicly available resources for conducting research activities related to this subject, as only a limited number of journals and conferences currently allow access to their review process for interested parties. In this paper, we introduce the new comprehensive Open Review-Based dataset (ORB); it includes a curated list of more than 36,000 scientific papers with their more than 89,000 reviews and final decisions. We gather this information from two sources: the OpenReview.net and SciPost.org websites. However, given the volatile nature of this domain, the software infrastructure that we introduce to supplement the ORB dataset is designed to accommodate additional resources in the future. The ORB deliverables include (1) Python code (interfaces and implementations) to translate document data and metadata into a structured and high-level representation, (2) an ETL process (Extract, Transform, Load) to facilitate the automatic updates from defined sources and (3) data files representing the structured data. The paper presents our data architecture and an overview of the collected data along with relevant statistics. For illustration purposes, we also discuss preliminary Natural-Language-Processing-based experiments that aim to predict (1) papers' acceptance based on their textual embeddings, and (2) grading statistics inferred from embeddings as well. We believe ORB provides a valuable resource for researchers interested in open science and review, with our implementation easing the use of this data for further analysis and experimentation. We plan to update ORB as the field matures as well as introduce new resources even more fitted to dedicated scientific domains such as High-Energy Physics., Comment: 13 pages, supplementary material included, dataset available

This paper delves into the pressing need in Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) for Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs possess remarkable capabilities, their extensive parameter requirements and associated computational demands hinder their practicality and scalability for real-world applications. Our position paper highlights current states and the necessity of further studying into the topic, and recognizes significant challenges and open issues that must be addressed to fully harness the powerful abilities of LLMs. These challenges encompass novel efficient PEFT architectures, PEFT for different learning settings, PEFT combined with model compression techniques, and the exploration of PEFT for multi-modal LLMs. By presenting this position paper, we aim to stimulate further research and foster discussions surrounding more efficient and accessible PEFT for LLMs.

Citation count of a paper is a commonly used proxy for evaluating the significance of a paper in the scientific community. Yet citation measures are widely criticized for failing to accurately reflect the true impact of a paper. Thus, we propose CausalCite, a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers. CausalCite is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. TextMatch encodes each paper using text embeddings from large language models (LLMs), extracts similar samples by cosine similarity, and synthesizes a counterfactual sample as the weighted average of similar papers according to their similarity values. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts on a previous dataset of 1K papers, (test-of-time) awards for past papers, and its stability across various subfields of AI. We also provide a set of findings that can serve as suggested ways for future researchers to use our metric for a better understanding of the quality of a paper. Our code is available at https://github.com/causalNLP/causal-cite., Comment: ACL 2024 Findings

Current approaches to automatic summarization of scientific papers generate informative summaries in the form of abstracts. However, abstracts are not intended to show the relationship between a paper and the references cited in it. We propose a new contextualized summarization approach that can generate an informative summary conditioned on a given sentence containing the citation of a reference (a so-called "citance"). This summary outlines the content of the cited paper relevant to the citation location. Thus, our approach extracts and models the citances of a paper, retrieves relevant passages from cited papers, and generates abstractive summaries tailored to each citance. We evaluate our approach using $\textbf{Webis-Context-SciSumm-2023}$, a new dataset containing 540K~computer science papers and 4.6M~citances therein., Comment: Accepted at EMNLP 2023 Findings

Abstracts derived from biomedical literature possess distinct domain-specific characteristics, including specialised writing styles and biomedical terminologies, which necessitate a deep understanding of the related literature. As a result, existing language models struggle to generate technical summaries that are on par with those produced by biomedical experts, given the absence of domain-specific background knowledge. This paper aims to enhance the performance of language models in biomedical abstractive summarisation by aggregating knowledge from external papers cited within the source article. We propose a novel attention-based citation aggregation model that integrates domain-specific knowledge from citation papers, allowing neural networks to generate summaries by leveraging both the paper content and relevant knowledge from citation papers. Furthermore, we construct and release a large-scale biomedical summarisation dataset that serves as a foundation for our research. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art approaches and achieves substantial improvements in abstractive biomedical text summarisation., Comment: Accepted by EMNLP 2023

With the rapid increase in paper submissions to academic conferences, the need for automated and accurate paper-reviewer matching is more critical than ever. Previous efforts in this area have considered various factors to assess the relevance of a reviewer's expertise to a paper, such as the semantic similarity, shared topics, and citation connections between the paper and the reviewer's previous works. However, most of these studies focus on only one factor, resulting in an incomplete evaluation of the paper-reviewer relevance. To address this issue, we propose a unified model for paper-reviewer matching that jointly considers semantic, topic, and citation factors. To be specific, during training, we instruction-tune a contextualized language model shared across all factors to capture their commonalities and characteristics; during inference, we chain the three factors to enable step-by-step, coarse-to-fine search for qualified reviewers given a submission. Experiments on four datasets (one of which is newly contributed by us) spanning various fields such as machine learning, computer vision, information retrieval, and data mining consistently demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed Chain-of-Factors model in comparison with state-of-the-art paper-reviewer matching methods and scientific pre-trained language models.

Hallucination plagues even frontier LLMs--but how bad is it really for summarizing academic papers? We evaluate Factored Verification, a simple automated method for detecting hallucinations in abstractive summaries. This method sets a new SotA on hallucination detection in the summarization task of the HaluEval benchmark, achieving 76.2% accuracy. We then use this method to estimate how often language models hallucinate when summarizing across multiple academic papers and find 0.62 hallucinations in the average ChatGPT (16k) summary, 0.84 for GPT-4, and 1.55 for Claude 2. We ask models to self-correct using Factored Critiques and find that this lowers the number of hallucinations to 0.49 for ChatGPT, 0.46 for GPT-4, and 0.95 for Claude 2. The hallucinations we find are often subtle, so we advise caution when using models to synthesize academic papers., Comment: Second Workshop on Information Extraction from Scientific Publications (WIESP) at IJCNLP-AACL 2023

In the rapidly evolving field of crypto assets, white papers are essential documents for investor guidance, and are now subject to unprecedented content requirements under the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR). Natural Language Processing (NLP) can serve as a powerful tool for both analyzing these documents and assisting in regulatory compliance. This paper delivers two contributions to the topic. First, we survey existing applications of textual analysis to unregulated crypto asset white papers, uncovering a research gap that could be bridged with interdisciplinary collaboration. We then conduct an analysis of the changes introduced by MiCAR, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of integrating NLP within the new regulatory framework. The findings set the stage for further research, with the potential to benefit regulators, crypto asset issuers, and investors., Comment: Accepted at NLLP23

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

Question answering (QA) systems have attracted much attention from the artificial intelligence community as they can learn to answer questions based on the given knowledge source (e.g., images in visual question answering). However, the research into question answering systems with human mobility data remains unexplored. Mining human mobility data is crucial for various applications such as smart city planning, pandemic management, and personalised recommendation system. In this paper, we aim to tackle this gap and introduce a novel task, that is, human mobility question answering (MobQA). The aim of the task is to let the intelligent system learn from mobility data and answer related questions. This task presents a new paradigm change in mobility prediction research and further facilitates the research of human mobility recommendation systems. To better support this novel research topic, this vision paper also proposes an initial design of the dataset and a potential deep learning model framework for the introduced MobQA task. We hope that this paper will provide novel insights and open new directions in human mobility research and question answering research.

We present appjsonify, a Python-based PDF-to-JSON conversion toolkit for academic papers. It parses a PDF file using several visual-based document layout analysis models and rule-based text processing approaches. appjsonify is a flexible tool that allows users to easily configure the processing pipeline to handle a specific format of a paper they wish to process. We are publicly releasing appjsonify as an easy-to-install toolkit available via PyPI and GitHub., Comment: Preprint. PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/appjsonify/ GitHub: https://pypi.org/project/appjsonify/. Fixed Figure 1 containing paper PDF examples

Highly specific datasets of scientific literature are important for both research and education. However, it is difficult to build such datasets at scale. A common approach is to build these datasets reductively by applying topic modeling on an established corpus and selecting specific topics. A more robust but time-consuming approach is to build the dataset constructively in which a subject matter expert (SME) handpicks documents. This method does not scale and is prone to error as the dataset grows. Here we showcase a new tool, based on machine learning, for constructively generating targeted datasets of scientific literature. Given a small initial "core" corpus of papers, we build a citation network of documents. At each step of the citation network, we generate text embeddings and visualize the embeddings through dimensionality reduction. Papers are kept in the dataset if they are "similar" to the core or are otherwise pruned through human-in-the-loop selection. Additional insight into the papers is gained through sub-topic modeling using SeNMFk. We demonstrate our new tool for literature review by applying it to two different fields in machine learning., Comment: Accepted at 2023 IEEE ICMLA conference

Many useful tasks on scientific documents, such as topic classification and citation prediction, involve corpora that span multiple scientific domains. Typically, such tasks are accomplished by representing the text with a vector embedding obtained from a Transformer's single CLS token. In this paper, we argue that using multiple CLS tokens could make a Transformer better specialize to multiple scientific domains. We present Multi2SPE: it encourages each of multiple CLS tokens to learn diverse ways of aggregating token embeddings, then sums them up together to create a single vector representation. We also propose our new multi-domain benchmark, Multi-SciDocs, to test scientific paper vector encoders under multi-domain settings. We show that Multi2SPE reduces error by up to 25 percent in multi-domain citation prediction, while requiring only a negligible amount of computation in addition to one BERT forward pass.

The rapid growth of information in the field of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly in the subfields of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML), presents a significant challenge for researchers and practitioners to keep pace with the latest developments. To address the problem of information overload, this report by the Natural Language Learning Group at Bielefeld University focuses on identifying the most popular papers on arXiv, with a specific emphasis on NLP and ML. The objective is to offer a quick guide to the most relevant and widely discussed research, aiding both newcomers and established researchers in staying abreast of current trends. In particular, we compile a list of the 40 most popular papers based on normalized citation counts from the first half of 2023. We observe the dominance of papers related to Large Language Models (LLMs) and specifically ChatGPT during the first half of 2023, with the latter showing signs of declining popularity more recently, however. Further, NLP related papers are the most influential (around 60\% of top papers) even though there are twice as many ML related papers in our data. Core issues investigated in the most heavily cited papers are: LLM efficiency, evaluation techniques, ethical considerations, embodied agents, and problem-solving with LLMs. Additionally, we examine the characteristics of top papers in comparison to others outside the top-40 list (noticing the top paper's focus on LLM related issues and higher number of co-authors) and analyze the citation distributions in our dataset, among others., Comment: Technical Report

Instead of relying on human-annotated training samples to build a classifier, weakly supervised scientific paper classification aims to classify papers only using category descriptions (e.g., category names, category-indicative keywords). Existing studies on weakly supervised paper classification are less concerned with two challenges: (1) Papers should be classified into not only coarse-grained research topics but also fine-grained themes, and potentially into multiple themes, given a large and fine-grained label space; and (2) full text should be utilized to complement the paper title and abstract for classification. Moreover, instead of viewing the entire paper as a long linear sequence, one should exploit the structural information such as citation links across papers and the hierarchy of sections and paragraphs in each paper. To tackle these challenges, in this study, we propose FUTEX, a framework that uses the cross-paper network structure and the in-paper hierarchy structure to classify full-text scientific papers under weak supervision. A network-aware contrastive fine-tuning module and a hierarchy-aware aggregation module are designed to leverage the two types of structural signals, respectively. Experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that FUTEX significantly outperforms competitive baselines and is on par with fully supervised classifiers that use 1,000 to 60,000 ground-truth training samples., Comment: 12 pages; Accepted to KDD 2023 (Code: https://github.com/yuzhimanhua/FUTEX)

What is the effect of releasing a preprint of a paper before it is submitted for peer review? No randomized controlled trial has been conducted, so we turn to observational data to answer this question. We use data from the ICLR conference (2018--2022) and apply methods from causal inference to estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference. Adjusting for confounders such as topic, authors, and quality, we may estimate the causal effect. However, since quality is a challenging construct to estimate, we use the negative outcome control method, using paper citation count as a control variable to debias the quality confounding effect. Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance. However, this effect (when existing) does not differ significantly across different groups of authors, as grouped by author citation count and institute rank. This suggests that early arXiving does not provide an advantage to any particular group., Comment: Published at CLeaR 2024

We introduce the task of automatically revising scientific papers based on peer feedback and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits. The data is drawn from real reviewer-author interactions from computer science, and we provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author in response. We automatically create a high-precision silver training set, as well as an expert-labeled test set that shows high inter-annotator agreement. In experiments with 10 models covering the state of the art, we find that they struggle even to identify which edits correspond to a comment -- especially when the relationship between the edit and the comment is indirect and requires reasoning to uncover. We also extensively analyze GPT-4's ability to generate edits given a comment and the original paper. We find that it often succeeds on a superficial level, but tends to rigidly follow the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and lacks technical details compared to human-written edits., Comment: ACL 2024, 10 pages, 2 figures

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Large language models (LLMs) are dramatically influencing AI research, spurring discussions on what has changed so far and how to shape the field's future. To clarify such questions, we analyze a new dataset of 16,979 LLM-related arXiv papers, focusing on recent trends in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. First, we study disciplinary shifts: LLM research increasingly considers societal impacts, evidenced by 20x growth in LLM submissions to the Computers and Society sub-arXiv. An influx of new authors -- half of all first authors in 2023 -- are entering from non-NLP fields of CS, driving disciplinary expansion. Second, we study industry and academic publishing trends. Surprisingly, industry accounts for a smaller publication share in 2023, largely due to reduced output from Google and other Big Tech companies; universities in Asia are publishing more. Third, we study institutional collaboration: while industry-academic collaborations are common, they tend to focus on the same topics that industry focuses on rather than bridging differences. The most prolific institutions are all US- or China-based, but there is very little cross-country collaboration. We discuss implications around (1) how to support the influx of new authors, (2) how industry trends may affect academics, and (3) possible effects of (the lack of) collaboration., Comment: NAACL 2024. Data & code available at https://github.com/rmovva/LLM-publication-patterns-public

Large scale language models (LLM) have received significant attention and found diverse applications across various domains, but their development encounters challenges in real-world scenarios. These challenges arise due to the scarcity of public domain data availability and the need to maintain privacy with respect to private domain data. To address these issues, federated learning (FL) has emerged as a promising technology that enables collaborative training of shared models while preserving decentralized data. We propose the concept of federated LLM, which comprises three key components, i.e., federated LLM pre-training, federated LLM fine-tuning, and federated LLM prompt engineering. For each component, we discuss its advantage over traditional LLM training methods and propose specific engineering strategies for implementation. Furthermore, we explore the novel challenges introduced by the integration of FL and LLM. We analyze existing solutions and identify potential obstacles faced by these solutions within the context of federated LLM., Comment: 11 pages, 4 figures

The rapid growth of scientific publications, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the need for tools to help researchers efficiently comprehend the latest advancements. One essential part of understanding scientific literature is research aspect classification, which categorizes sentences in abstracts to Background, Purpose, Method, and Finding. In this study, we investigate the impact of different datasets on model performance for the crowd-annotated CODA-19 research aspect classification task. Specifically, we explore the potential benefits of using the large, automatically curated PubMed 200K RCT dataset and evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), such as LLaMA, GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Our results indicate that using the PubMed 200K RCT dataset does not improve performance for the CODA-19 task. We also observe that while GPT-4 performs well, it does not outperform the SciBERT model fine-tuned on the CODA-19 dataset, emphasizing the importance of a dedicated and task-aligned datasets dataset for the target task. Our code is available at https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/CODA-19-exp., Comment: BioNLP workshop 2023

Opinions in scientific research papers can be divergent, leading to controversies among reviewers. However, most existing datasets for opinion summarization are centered around product reviews and assume that the analyzed opinions are non-controversial, failing to account for the variability seen in other contexts such as academic papers, political debates, or social media discussions. To address this gap, we propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. To facilitate this task, we introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences. Furthermore, we propose the Checklist-guided Iterative Introspection approach, which breaks down scientific opinion summarization into several stages, iteratively refining the summary under the guidance of questions from a checklist. Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions and can be applied to other complex text generation using black-box LLMs., Comment: IJCAI 2024 AI4Research Workshop

Objective: To assess the performance of the OpenAI GPT API in accurately and efficiently identifying relevant titles and abstracts from real-world clinical review datasets and compare its performance against ground truth labelling by two independent human reviewers. Methods: We introduce a novel workflow using the OpenAI GPT API for screening titles and abstracts in clinical reviews. A Python script was created to make calls to the GPT API with the screening criteria in natural language and a corpus of title and abstract datasets that have been filtered by a minimum of two human reviewers. We compared the performance of our model against human-reviewed papers across six review papers, screening over 24,000 titles and abstracts. Results: Our results show an accuracy of 0.91, a sensitivity of excluded papers of 0.91, and a sensitivity of included papers of 0.76. On a randomly selected subset of papers, the GPT API demonstrated the ability to provide reasoning for its decisions and corrected its initial decision upon being asked to explain its reasoning for a subset of incorrect classifications. Conclusion: The GPT API has the potential to streamline the clinical review process, save valuable time and effort for researchers, and contribute to the overall quality of clinical reviews. By prioritizing the workflow and acting as an aid rather than a replacement for researchers and reviewers, the GPT API can enhance efficiency and lead to more accurate and reliable conclusions in medical research., Comment: 15 pages, 2 figures, 4 tables

Citations in scientific papers not only help us trace the intellectual lineage but also are a useful indicator of the scientific significance of the work. Citation intents prove beneficial as they specify the role of the citation in a given context. In this paper, we present CitePrompt, a framework which uses the hitherto unexplored approach of prompt-based learning for citation intent classification. We argue that with the proper choice of the pretrained language model, the prompt template, and the prompt verbalizer, we can not only get results that are better than or comparable to those obtained with the state-of-the-art methods but also do it with much less exterior information about the scientific document. We report state-of-the-art results on the ACL-ARC dataset, and also show significant improvement on the SciCite dataset over all baseline models except one. As suitably large labelled datasets for citation intent classification can be quite hard to find, in a first, we propose the conversion of this task to the few-shot and zero-shot settings. For the ACL-ARC dataset, we report a 53.86% F1 score for the zero-shot setting, which improves to 63.61% and 66.99% for the 5-shot and 10-shot settings, respectively., Comment: Selected for publication at ACM/IEEE JOINT CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL LIBRARIES 2023