Search

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

The iterative character of work in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) and reliance on comparisons against benchmark datasets emphasize the importance of reproducibility in that literature. Yet, resource constraints and inadequate documentation can make running replications particularly challenging. Our work explores the potential of using downstream citation contexts as a signal of reproducibility. We introduce a sentiment analysis framework applied to citation contexts from papers involved in Machine Learning Reproducibility Challenges in order to interpret the positive or negative outcomes of reproduction attempts. Our contributions include training classifiers for reproducibility-related contexts and sentiment analysis, and exploring correlations between citation context sentiment and reproducibility scores. Study data, software, and an artifact appendix are publicly available at https://github.com/lamps-lab/ccair-ai-reproducibility ., Comment: 9 pages, 4 figures

As AI promises to accelerate scientific discovery, it remains unclear whether fully AI-driven research is possible and whether it can adhere to key scientific values, such as transparency, traceability and verifiability. Mimicking human scientific practices, we built data-to-paper, an automation platform that guides interacting LLM agents through a complete stepwise research process, while programmatically back-tracing information flow and allowing human oversight and interactions. In autopilot mode, provided with annotated data alone, data-to-paper raised hypotheses, designed research plans, wrote and debugged analysis codes, generated and interpreted results, and created complete and information-traceable research papers. Even though research novelty was relatively limited, the process demonstrated autonomous generation of de novo quantitative insights from data. For simple research goals, a fully-autonomous cycle can create manuscripts which recapitulate peer-reviewed publications without major errors in about 80-90%, yet as goal complexity increases, human co-piloting becomes critical for assuring accuracy. Beyond the process itself, created manuscripts too are inherently verifiable, as information-tracing allows to programmatically chain results, methods and data. Our work thereby demonstrates a potential for AI-driven acceleration of scientific discovery while enhancing, rather than jeopardizing, traceability, transparency and verifiability.

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 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 https://github.com/armbf/LimGen., Comment: 16 pages, 3 figures

This non-archival index is not complete, as some accepted papers chose to opt-out of inclusion. The list of all accepted papers is available on the workshop website.

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.

This paper discusses the effectiveness of leveraging Chatbot: Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) versions 3.5 and 4 for analyzing research papers for effective writing of scientific literature surveys. The study selected the \textit{Application of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Treatment} as the research topic. Research papers related to this topic were collected from three major publication databases Google Scholar, Pubmed, and Scopus. ChatGPT models were used to identify the category, scope, and relevant information from the research papers for automatic identification of relevant papers related to Breast Cancer Treatment (BCT), organization of papers according to scope, and identification of key information for survey paper writing. Evaluations performed using ground truth data annotated using subject experts reveal, that GPT-4 achieves 77.3\% accuracy in identifying the research paper categories and 50\% of the papers were correctly identified by GPT-4 for their scopes. Further, the results demonstrate that GPT-4 can generate reasons for its decisions with an average of 27\% new words, and 67\% of the reasons given by the model were completely agreeable to the subject experts.

Does the stethoscope in the picture make the adjacent person a doctor or a patient? This, of course, depends on the contextual relationship of the two objects. If it is obvious, why don not explanation methods for vision models use contextual information? In this paper, we (1) review the most popular methods of explaining computer vision models by pointing out that they do not take into account context information, (2) provide examples of real-world use cases where spatial context plays a significant role, (3) propose new research directions that may lead to better use of context information in explaining computer vision models, (4) argue that a change in approach to explanations is needed from 'where' to 'how'., Comment: Accepted for ICML 2024

Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is one of the safety analysis methods recommended by most of the international standards. The classical FMECA is made in a form of a table filled in either manually or by using safety analysis tools. In both cases, the design engineers have to choose the trade-offs between safety and other development constraints. In the case of complex cyber-physical systems (CPS) with thousands of specified constraints, this may lead to severe problems and significantly impact the overall criticality of CPS. In this paper, we propose to adopt optimization techniques to automate the decision making process conducted after FMECA of CPS. We describe a multi-agent based optimization method which extends classical FMECA for offering optimal solutions in terms of criticality and development constraints of CPS., Comment: 13 pages, 2 figures, 1 table, "2nd International Workshop on Emerging Ideas and Trends in Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems, part of Cyber-Physical Systems Week, April 2015, Seattle, USA"