Search

AstroSage-Llama-3.1-8B is a domain-specialized natural-language AI assistant tailored for research in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. Trained on the complete collection of astronomy-related arXiv papers from 2007-2024 along with millions of synthetically-generated question-answer pairs and other astronomical literature, AstroSage-Llama-3.1-8B demonstrates remarkable proficiency on a wide range of questions. AstroSage-Llama-3.1-8B scores 80.9% on the AstroMLab-1 benchmark, greatly outperforming all models -- proprietary and open-weight -- in the 8-billion parameter class, and performing on par with GPT-4o. This achievement demonstrates the potential of domain specialization in AI, suggesting that focused training can yield capabilities exceeding those of much larger, general-purpose models. AstroSage-Llama-3.1-8B is freely available, enabling widespread access to advanced AI capabilities for astronomical education and research.

The integrity of the peer-review process is vital for maintaining scientific rigor and trust within the academic community. With the steady increase in the usage of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in academic writing, there is a growing concern that AI-generated texts could compromise scientific publishing, including peer-reviews. Previous works have focused on generic AI-generated text detection or have presented an approach for estimating the fraction of peer-reviews that can be AI-generated. Our focus here is to solve a real-world problem by assisting the editor or chair in determining whether a review is written by ChatGPT or not. To address this, we introduce the Term Frequency (TF) model, which posits that AI often repeats tokens, and the Review Regeneration (RR) model, which is based on the idea that ChatGPT generates similar outputs upon re-prompting. We stress test these detectors against token attack and paraphrasing. Finally, we propose an effective defensive strategy to reduce the effect of paraphrasing on our models. Our findings suggest both our proposed methods perform better than the other AI text detectors. Our RR model is more robust, although our TF model performs better than the RR model without any attacks. We make our code, dataset, and model public., Comment: EMNLP Main, 17 pages, 5 figures, 9 tables

Continual pretraining of large language models on domain-specific data has been proposed to enhance performance on downstream tasks. In astronomy, the previous absence of astronomy-focused benchmarks has hindered objective evaluation of these specialized LLM models. Leveraging a recent initiative to curate high-quality astronomical MCQs, this study aims to quantitatively assess specialized LLMs in astronomy. We find that the previously released AstroLLaMA series, based on LLaMA-2-7B, underperforms compared to the base model. We demonstrate that this performance degradation can be partially mitigated by utilizing high-quality data for continual pretraining, such as summarized text from arXiv. Despite the observed catastrophic forgetting in smaller models, our results indicate that continual pretraining on the 70B model can yield significant improvements. However, the current supervised fine-tuning dataset still constrains the performance of instruct models. In conjunction with this study, we introduce a new set of models, AstroLLaMA-3-8B and AstroLLaMA-2-70B, building upon the previous AstroLLaMA series., Comment: 10 pages, 1 figure, 1 table, accepted to AI4S: The 5th Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Scientific Applications at the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage, and Analysis (SC24). Models will be released at https://huggingface.co/AstroMLab. AstroMLab homepage: https://astromlab.org/

"An idea is nothing more nor less than a new combination of old elements" (Young, J.W.). The widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) and publicly available ChatGPT have marked a significant turning point in the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into people's everyday lives. This study explores the capability of LLMs in generating novel research ideas based on information from research papers. We conduct a thorough examination of 4 LLMs in five domains (e.g., Chemistry, Computer, Economics, Medical, and Physics). We found that the future research ideas generated by Claude-2 and GPT-4 are more aligned with the author's perspective than GPT-3.5 and Gemini. We also found that Claude-2 generates more diverse future research ideas than GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Gemini 1.0. We further performed a human evaluation of the novelty, relevancy, and feasibility of the generated future research ideas. This investigation offers insights into the evolving role of LLMs in idea generation, highlighting both its capability and limitations. Our work contributes to the ongoing efforts in evaluating and utilizing language models for generating future research ideas. We make our datasets and codes publicly available., Comment: 24 pages, 12 figures, 6 tables

The exponential growth of astronomical literature poses significant challenges for researchers navigating and synthesizing general insights or even domain-specific knowledge. We present Pathfinder, a machine learning framework designed to enable literature review and knowledge discovery in astronomy, focusing on semantic searching with natural language instead of syntactic searches with keywords. Utilizing state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) and a corpus of 350,000 peer-reviewed papers from the Astrophysics Data System (ADS), Pathfinder offers an innovative approach to scientific inquiry and literature exploration. Our framework couples advanced retrieval techniques with LLM-based synthesis to search astronomical literature by semantic context as a complement to currently existing methods that use keywords or citation graphs. It addresses complexities of jargon, named entities, and temporal aspects through time-based and citation-based weighting schemes. We demonstrate the tool's versatility through case studies, showcasing its application in various research scenarios. The system's performance is evaluated using custom benchmarks, including single-paper and multi-paper tasks. Beyond literature review, Pathfinder offers unique capabilities for reformatting answers in ways that are accessible to various audiences (e.g. in a different language or as simplified text), visualizing research landscapes, and tracking the impact of observatories and methodologies. This tool represents a significant advancement in applying AI to astronomical research, aiding researchers at all career stages in navigating modern astronomy literature., Comment: 25 pages, 9 figures, submitted to AAS jorunals. Comments are welcome, and the tools mentioned are available online at https://pfdr.app

We present a comprehensive evaluation of proprietary and open-weights large language models using the first astronomy-specific benchmarking dataset. This dataset comprises 4,425 multiple-choice questions curated from the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, covering a broad range of astrophysical topics. Our analysis examines model performance across various astronomical subfields and assesses response calibration, crucial for potential deployment in research environments. Claude-3.5-Sonnet outperforms competitors by up to 4.6 percentage points, achieving 85.0% accuracy. For proprietary models, we observed a universal reduction in cost every 3-to-12 months to achieve similar score in this particular astronomy benchmark. open-weights models have rapidly improved, with LLaMA-3-70b (80.6%) and Qwen-2-72b (77.7%) now competing with some of the best proprietary models. We identify performance variations across topics, with non-English-focused models generally struggling more in exoplanet-related fields, stellar astrophysics, and instrumentation related questions. These challenges likely stem from less abundant training data, limited historical context, and rapid recent developments in these areas. This pattern is observed across both open-weights and proprietary models, with regional dependencies evident, highlighting the impact of training data diversity on model performance in specialized scientific domains. Top-performing models demonstrate well-calibrated confidence, with correlations above 0.9 between confidence and correctness, though they tend to be slightly underconfident. The development for fast, low-cost inference of open-weights models presents new opportunities for affordable deployment in astronomy. The rapid progress observed suggests that LLM-driven research in astronomy may become feasible in the near future., Comment: 45 pages, 12 figures, 7 tables. Published in Astronomy & Computing. AstroMLab homepage: https://astromlab.org/

To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' assessment, identify points of agreement and disagreement and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the escalating number of submissions requiring review, especially in top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences, the editor/chair, among many other works, invests a significant, sometimes stressful effort to mitigate reviewer disagreements. Here in this work, we introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To this end, we introduce ContraSciView, a comprehensive review-pair contradiction dataset on around 8.5k papers (with around 28k review pairs containing nearly 50k review pair comments) from the open review-based ICLR and NeurIPS conferences. We further propose a baseline model that detects contradictory statements from the review pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically. We make our dataset and code public for further investigations., Comment: 12 pages, 5 figures, EMNLP 2023 short

Exponential growth in digital information outlets and the race to publish has made scientific misinformation more prevalent than ever. However, the task to fact-verify a given scientific claim is not straightforward even for researchers. Scientific claim verification requires in-depth knowledge and great labor from domain experts to substantiate supporting and refuting evidence from credible scientific sources. The SciFact dataset and corresponding task provide a benchmarking leaderboard to the community to develop automatic scientific claim verification systems via extracting and assimilating relevant evidence rationales from source abstracts. In this work, we propose a modular approach that sequentially carries out binary classification for every prediction subtask as in the SciFact leaderboard. Our simple classifier-based approach uses reduced abstract representations to retrieve relevant abstracts. These are further used to train the relevant rationale-selection model. Finally, we carry out two-step stance predictions that first differentiate non-relevant rationales and then identify supporting or refuting rationales for a given claim. Experimentally, our system RerrFact with no fine-tuning, simple design, and a fraction of model parameters fairs competitively on the leaderboard against large-scale, modular, and joint modeling approaches. We make our codebase available at https://github.com/ashishrana160796/RerrFact., Comment: Accepted in the AAAI-22 Workshop on Scientific Document Understanding at the Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (SDU@AAAI-22)

A drastic rise in potentially life-threatening misinformation has been a by-product of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computational support to identify false information within the massive body of data on the topic is crucial to prevent harm. Researchers proposed many methods for flagging online misinformation related to COVID-19. However, these methods predominantly target specific content types (e.g., news) or platforms (e.g., Twitter). The methods' capabilities to generalize were largely unclear so far. We evaluate fifteen Transformer-based models on five COVID-19 misinformation datasets that include social media posts, news articles, and scientific papers to fill this gap. We show tokenizers and models tailored to COVID-19 data do not provide a significant advantage over general-purpose ones. Our study provides a realistic assessment of models for detecting COVID-19 misinformation. We expect that evaluating a broad spectrum of datasets and models will benefit future research in developing misinformation detection systems.

Detecting novelty of an entire document is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) frontier problem that has widespread NLP applications, such as extractive document summarization, tracking development of news events, predicting impact of scholarly articles, etc. Important though the problem is, we are unaware of any benchmark document level data that correctly addresses the evaluation of automatic novelty detection techniques in a classification framework. To bridge this gap, we present here a resource for benchmarking the techniques for document level novelty detection. We create the resource via event-specific crawling of news documents across several domains in a periodic manner. We release the annotated corpus with necessary statistics and show its use with a developed system for the problem in concern., Comment: Accepted for publication in Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) 2018

This work is a preliminary exploratory study of how we could progress a step towards an AI assisted article classification sys- tem in academia. The proposed system aims to aid the journal editors in their decisions by pinpointing the potential weaknesses or strengths of a submitted manuscript. From a large collection of articles and corresponding author-editor interactions we explore the possible reasons that lead to a paper being not forwarded for review. Our investigation reveals that in most cases either it is be- cause the prospective manuscript is out of scope of the journal or the manuscript does not satisfy the minimum quality requirements to maintain the standard of the journal. We extract several features to quantify the quality of a paper and the degree of in-scope explor- ing keyword search, citation analysis, reputations of authors and affiliations, similarity with respect to accepted papers. With these features we train standard machine learning classifiers to develop a classification system. On a decent set of test data our approach yields promising results across 3 different journals. We believe that our approach is generic and could be adapted to other journals with appropriate adjustments.