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

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 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

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.

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.

Humans have a tendency to see 'human'-like qualities in objects around them. We name our cars, and talk to pets and even household appliances, as if they could understand us as other humans do. This behavior, called anthropomorphism, is also seeing traction in Machine Learning (ML), where human-like intelligence is claimed to be perceived in Large Language Models (LLMs). In this position paper, considering professional incentives, human biases, and general methodological setups, we discuss how the current search for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a perfect storm for over-attributing human-like qualities to LLMs. In several experiments, we demonstrate that the discovery of human-interpretable patterns in latent spaces should not be a surprising outcome. Also in consideration of common AI portrayal in the media, we call for the academic community to exercise extra caution, and to be extra aware of principles of academic integrity, in interpreting and communicating about AI research outcomes., Comment: 20 pages, 15 figures. Preliminary work. Under review by the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

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.

As many academic conferences are overwhelmed by a rapidly increasing number of paper submissions, automatically finding appropriate reviewers for each submission becomes a more urgent need than ever. Various factors have been considered by previous attempts on this task to measure the expertise relevance between a paper and a reviewer, including whether the paper is semantically close to, shares topics with, and cites previous papers of the reviewer. However, the majority of previous studies take only one of these factors into account, leading to an incomprehensive evaluation of paper-reviewer relevance. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we propose a unified model for paper-reviewer matching that jointly captures semantic, topic, and citation factors. In the unified model, a contextualized language model backbone is shared by all factors to learn common knowledge, while instruction tuning is introduced to characterize the uniqueness of each factor by producing factor-aware paper embeddings. Experiments on four datasets (one of which is newly contributed by us) across different fields, including machine learning, computer vision, information retrieval, and data mining, consistently validate the effectiveness of our proposed UniPR model in comparison with state-of-the-art paper-reviewer matching methods and scientific pre-trained language models.

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.

Evaluating the significance of a paper is pivotal yet challenging for the scientific community. While the citation count is the most commonly used proxy for this purpose, they are widely criticized for failing to accurately reflect a paper's true impact. In this work, we propose a causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. Specifically, we encode each paper using the text embeddings by large language models (LLMs), extract similar samples by cosine similarity, and synthesize a counterfactual sample by the weighted average of similar papers according to their similarity values. We apply the resulting metric, called CausalCite, as a causal formulation of paper citations. We show its effectiveness 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 sub-fields 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 a paper's quality. Our code and data are at https://github.com/causalNLP/causal-cite.

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

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

Revising scientific papers based on peer feedback is a challenging task that requires not only deep scientific knowledge and reasoning, but also the ability to recognize the implicit requests in high-level feedback and to choose the best of many possible ways to update the manuscript in response. We introduce this task for large language models and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits, to enable training and evaluating models. We study two versions of the task: comment-edit alignment and edit generation, and evaluate several baselines, including GPT-4. We find that models struggle even to identify the edits that correspond to a comment, especially in cases where the comment is phrased in an indirect way or where the edit addresses the spirit of a comment but not the precise request. When tasked with generating edits, GPT-4 often succeeds in addressing comments on a surface level, but it rigidly follows the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and includes fewer technical details than human-written edits. We hope that our formalization, dataset, and analysis will form a foundation for future work in this area., Comment: 11 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

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

In the first half of 2023, text-generative artificial intelligence (AI), including ChatGPT, equipped with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, from OpenAI, has attracted considerable attention worldwide. In this study, first, we compared Japanese stylometric features of texts generated by GPT (-3.5 and -4) and those written by humans. In this work, we performed multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) to confirm the distributions of 216 texts of three classes (72 academic papers written by 36 single authors, 72 texts generated by GPT-3.5, and 72 texts generated by GPT-4 on the basis of the titles of the aforementioned papers) focusing on the following stylometric features: (1) bigrams of parts-of-speech, (2) bigram of postpositional particle words, (3) positioning of commas, and (4) rate of function words. MDS revealed distinct distributions at each stylometric feature of GPT (-3.5 and -4) and human. Although GPT-4 is more powerful than GPT-3.5 because it has more parameters, both GPT (-3.5 and -4) distributions are likely to overlap. These results indicate that although the number of parameters may increase in the future, GPT-generated texts may not be close to that written by humans in terms of stylometric features. Second, we verified the classification performance of random forest (RF) for two classes (GPT and human) focusing on Japanese stylometric features. This study revealed the high performance of RF in each stylometric feature: The RF classifier focusing on the rate of function words achieved 98.1% accuracy. Furthermore the RF classifier focusing on all stylometric features reached 100% in terms of all performance indexes (accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score). This study concluded that at this stage we human discriminate ChatGPT from human limited to Japanese language., Comment: 17 pages, 5 figures, 5 tables

There has been a growing effort to replace manual extraction of data from research papers with automated data extraction based on natural language processing, language models, and recently, large language models (LLMs). Although these methods enable efficient extraction of data from large sets of research papers, they require a significant amount of up-front effort, expertise, and coding. In this work we propose the ChatExtract method that can fully automate very accurate data extraction with minimal initial effort and background, using an advanced conversational LLM. ChatExtract consists of a set of engineered prompts applied to a conversational LLM that both identify sentences with data, extract that data, and assure the data's correctness through a series of follow-up questions. These follow-up questions largely overcome known issues with LLMs providing factually inaccurate responses. ChatExtract can be applied with any conversational LLMs and yields very high quality data extraction. In tests on materials data we find precision and recall both close to 90% from the best conversational LLMs, like ChatGPT-4. We demonstrate that the exceptional performance is enabled by the information retention in a conversational model combined with purposeful redundancy and introducing uncertainty through follow-up prompts. These results suggest that approaches similar to ChatExtract, due to their simplicity, transferability, and accuracy are likely to become powerful tools for data extraction in the near future. Finally, databases for critical cooling rates of metallic glasses and yield strengths of high entropy alloys are developed using ChatExtract., Comment: 7 pages, 3 figures, 1 table

Tabular representation learning has recently gained a lot of attention. However, existing approaches only learn a representation from a single table, and thus ignore the potential to learn from the full structure of relational databases, including neighboring tables that can contain important information for a contextualized representation. Moreover, current models are significantly limited in scale, which prevents that they learn from large databases. In this paper, we thus introduce our vision of relational representation learning, that can not only learn from the full relational structure, but also can scale to larger database sizes that are commonly found in real-world. Moreover, we also discuss opportunities and challenges we see along the way to enable this vision and present initial very promising results. Overall, we argue that this direction can lead to foundation models for relational databases that are today only available for text and images., Comment: Accepted at the Tabular Representation Learning Workshop at NeurIPS 2022 (TRL@NeurIPS2022)

This paper discusses OpenAIs ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a chatbot). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

Nowadays many research articles are prefaced with research highlights to summarize the main findings of the paper. Highlights not only help researchers precisely and quickly identify the contributions of a paper, they also enhance the discoverability of the article via search engines. We aim to automatically construct research highlights given certain segments of a research paper. We use a pointer-generator network with coverage mechanism and a contextual embedding layer at the input that encodes the input tokens into SciBERT embeddings. We test our model on a benchmark dataset, CSPubSum, and also present MixSub, a new multi-disciplinary corpus of papers for automatic research highlight generation. For both CSPubSum and MixSub, we have observed that the proposed model achieves the best performance compared to related variants and other models proposed in the literature. On the CSPubSum dataset, our model achieves the best performance when the input is only the abstract of a paper as opposed to other segments of the paper. It produces ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L F1-scores of 38.26, 14.26 and 35.51, respectively, METEOR score of 32.62, and BERTScore F1 of 86.65 which outperform all other baselines. On the new MixSub dataset, where only the abstract is the input, our proposed model (when trained on the whole training corpus without distinguishing between the subject categories) achieves ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L F1-scores of 31.78, 9.76 and 29.3, respectively, METEOR score of 24.00, and BERTScore F1 of 85.25., Comment: 19 Pages, 7 Figures, 8 Tables

Writing a survey paper on one research topic usually needs to cover the salient content from numerous related papers, which can be modeled as a multi-document summarization (MDS) task. Existing MDS datasets usually focus on producing the structureless summary covering a few input documents. Meanwhile, previous structured summary generation works focus on summarizing a single document into a multi-section summary. These existing datasets and methods cannot meet the requirements of summarizing numerous academic papers into a structured summary. To deal with the scarcity of available data, we propose BigSurvey, the first large-scale dataset for generating comprehensive summaries of numerous academic papers on each topic. We collect target summaries from more than seven thousand survey papers and utilize their 430 thousand reference papers' abstracts as input documents. To organize the diverse content from dozens of input documents and ensure the efficiency of processing long text sequences, we propose a summarization method named category-based alignment and sparse transformer (CAST). The experimental results show that our CAST method outperforms various advanced summarization methods., Comment: IJCAI 2022

In a citation graph, adjacent paper nodes share related scientific terms and topics. The graph thus conveys unique structure information of document-level relatedness that can be utilized in the paper summarization task, for exploring beyond the intra-document information. In this work, we focus on leveraging citation graphs to improve scientific paper extractive summarization under different settings. We first propose a Multi-granularity Unsupervised Summarization model (MUS) as a simple and low-cost solution to the task. MUS finetunes a pre-trained encoder model on the citation graph by link prediction tasks. Then, the abstract sentences are extracted from the corresponding paper considering multi-granularity information. Preliminary results demonstrate that citation graph is helpful even in a simple unsupervised framework. Motivated by this, we next propose a Graph-based Supervised Summarization model (GSS) to achieve more accurate results on the task when large-scale labeled data are available. Apart from employing the link prediction as an auxiliary task, GSS introduces a gated sentence encoder and a graph information fusion module to take advantage of the graph information to polish the sentence representation. Experiments on a public benchmark dataset show that MUS and GSS bring substantial improvements over the prior state-of-the-art model., Comment: 10 pages, 4 figure

We present the call for papers for the BabyLM Challenge: Sample-efficient pretraining on a developmentally plausible corpus. This shared task is intended for participants with an interest in small scale language modeling, human language acquisition, low-resource NLP, and cognitive modeling. In partnership with CoNLL and CMCL, we provide a platform for approaches to pretraining with a limited-size corpus sourced from data inspired by the input to children. The task has three tracks, two of which restrict the training data to pre-released datasets of 10M and 100M words and are dedicated to explorations of approaches such as architectural variations, self-supervised objectives, or curriculum learning. The final track only restricts the amount of text used, allowing innovation in the choice of the data, its domain, and even its modality (i.e., data from sources other than text is welcome). We will release a shared evaluation pipeline which scores models on a variety of benchmarks and tasks, including targeted syntactic evaluations and natural language understanding.

Source code is essential for researchers to reproduce the methods and replicate the results of artificial intelligence (AI) papers. Some organizations and researchers manually collect AI papers with available source code to contribute to the AI community. However, manual collection is a labor-intensive and time-consuming task. To address this issue, we propose a method to automatically identify papers with available source code and extract their source code repository URLs. With this method, we find that 20.5% of regular papers of 10 top AI conferences published from 2010 to 2019 are identified as papers with available source code and that 8.1% of these source code repositories are no longer accessible. We also create the XMU NLP Lab README Dataset, the largest dataset of labeled README files for source code document research. Through this dataset, we have discovered that quite a few README files have no installation instructions or usage tutorials provided. Further, a large-scale comprehensive statistical analysis is made for a general picture of the source code of AI conference papers. The proposed solution can also go beyond AI conference papers to analyze other scientific papers from both journals and conferences to shed light on more domains., Comment: Please cite the version of IJSEKE

The paper describes neural models developed for the DAGPap22 shared task hosted at the Third Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing. This shared task targets the automatic detection of generated scientific papers. Our work focuses on comparing different transformer-based models as well as using additional datasets and techniques to deal with imbalanced classes. As a final submission, we utilized an ensemble of SciBERT, RoBERTa, and DeBERTa fine-tuned using random oversampling technique. Our model achieved 99.24% in terms of F1-score. The official evaluation results have put our system at the third place., Comment: Accepted to SDP 2022 (Third Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing collocated with COLING 2022)

The number of clinical citations received from clinical guidelines or clinical trials has been considered as one of the most appropriate indicators for quantifying the clinical impact of biomedical papers. Therefore, the early prediction of the clinical citation count of biomedical papers is critical to scientific activities in biomedicine, such as research evaluation, resource allocation, and clinical translation. In this study, we designed a four-layer multilayer perceptron neural network (MPNN) model to predict the clinical citation count of biomedical papers in the future by using 9,822,620 biomedical papers published from 1985 to 2005. We extracted ninety-one paper features from three dimensions as the input of the model, including twenty-one features in the paper dimension, thirty-five in the reference dimension, and thirty-five in the citing paper dimension. In each dimension, the features can be classified into three categories, i.e., the citation-related features, the clinical translation-related features, and the topic-related features. Besides, in the paper dimension, we also considered the features that have previously been demonstrated to be related to the citation counts of research papers. The results showed that the proposed MPNN model outperformed the other five baseline models, and the features in the reference dimension were the most important., Comment: 25 pages, 8 figures

Appropriate evaluation and experimental design are fundamental for empirical sciences, particularly in data-driven fields. Due to the successes in computational modeling of languages, for instance, research outcomes are having an increasingly immediate impact on end users. As the gap in adoption by end users decreases, the need increases to ensure that tools and models developed by the research communities and practitioners are reliable, trustworthy, and supportive of the users in their goals. In this position paper, we focus on the issues of evaluating visual text analytics approaches. We take an interdisciplinary perspective from the visualization and natural language processing communities, as we argue that the design and validation of visual text analytics include concerns beyond computational or visual/interactive methods on their own. We identify four key groups of challenges for evaluating visual text analytics approaches (data ambiguity, experimental design, user trust, and "big picture" concerns) and provide suggestions for research opportunities from an interdisciplinary perspective., Comment: Published in Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV '22). ACM 2012 CCS: Human-centered computing, Visualization, Visualization design and evaluation methods