Search

When conducting literature reviews, scientists often create literature review tables - tables whose rows are publications and whose columns constitute a schema, a set of aspects used to compare and contrast the papers. Can we automatically generate these tables using language models (LMs)? In this work, we introduce a framework that leverages LMs to perform this task by decomposing it into separate schema and value generation steps. To enable experimentation, we address two main challenges: First, we overcome a lack of high-quality datasets to benchmark table generation by curating and releasing arxivDIGESTables, a new dataset of 2,228 literature review tables extracted from ArXiv papers that synthesize a total of 7,542 research papers. Second, to support scalable evaluation of model generations against human-authored reference tables, we develop DecontextEval, an automatic evaluation method that aligns elements of tables with the same underlying aspects despite differing surface forms. Given these tools, we evaluate LMs' abilities to reconstruct reference tables, finding this task benefits from additional context to ground the generation (e.g. table captions, in-text references). Finally, through a human evaluation study we find that even when LMs fail to fully reconstruct a reference table, their generated novel aspects can still be useful., Comment: EMNLP 2024, 21 pages, 8 figures, 10 tables

The scientific ideation process often involves blending salient aspects of existing papers to create new ideas. To see if large language models (LLMs) can assist this process, we contribute Scideator, a novel mixed-initiative tool for scientific ideation. Starting from a user-provided set of papers, Scideator extracts key facets (purposes, mechanisms, and evaluations) from these and relevant papers, allowing users to explore the idea space by interactively recombining facets to synthesize inventive ideas. Scideator also helps users to gauge idea novelty by searching the literature for potential overlaps and showing automated novelty assessments and explanations. To support these tasks, Scideator introduces four LLM-powered retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) modules: Analogous Paper Facet Finder, Faceted Idea Generator, Idea Novelty Checker, and Idea Novelty Iterator. In a within-subjects user study, 19 computer-science researchers identified significantly more interesting ideas using Scideator compared to a strong baseline combining a scientific search engine with LLM interaction., Comment: Added supplementary material

Knowledge workers often need to extract and analyze information from a collection of documents to solve complex information tasks in the workplace, e.g., hiring managers reviewing resumes or analysts assessing risk in contracts. However, foraging for relevant information can become tedious and repetitive over many documents and criteria of interest. We introduce Marco, a mixed-initiative workspace supporting sensemaking over diverse business document collections. Through collection-centric assistance, Marco reduces the cognitive costs of extracting and structuring information, allowing users to prioritize comparative synthesis and decision making processes. Users interactively communicate their information needs to an AI assistant using natural language and compose schemas that provide an overview of a document collection. Findings from a usability study (n=16) demonstrate that when using Marco, users complete sensemaking tasks 16% more quickly, with less effort, and without diminishing accuracy. A design probe with seven domain experts identifies how Marco can benefit various real-world workflows., Comment: 20 pages, 10 figures, 4 tables. Published at CHI 2024

Navigating the vast scientific literature often starts with browsing a paper's abstract. However, when a reader seeks additional information, not present in the abstract, they face a costly cognitive chasm during their dive into the full text. To bridge this gap, we introduce recursively expandable abstracts, a novel interaction paradigm that dynamically expands abstracts by progressively incorporating additional information from the papers' full text. This lightweight interaction allows scholars to specify their information needs by quickly brushing over the abstract or selecting AI-suggested expandable entities. Relevant information is synthesized using a retrieval-augmented generation approach, presented as a fluid, threaded expansion of the abstract, and made efficiently verifiable via attribution to relevant source-passages in the paper. Through a series of user studies, we demonstrate the utility of recursively expandable abstracts and identify future opportunities to support low-effort and just-in-time exploration of long-form information contexts through LLM-powered interactions., Comment: 21 pages, 10 figures, 4 tables. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2305.14314 by other authors

Many real-world applications (e.g., note taking, search) require extracting a sentence or paragraph from a document and showing that snippet to a human outside of the source document. Yet, users may find snippets difficult to understand as they lack context from the original document. In this work, we use language models to rewrite snippets from scientific documents to be read on their own. First, we define the requirements and challenges for this user-facing decontextualization task, such as clarifying where edits occur and handling references to other documents. Second, we propose a framework that decomposes the task into three stages: question generation, question answering, and rewriting. Using this framework, we collect gold decontextualizations from experienced scientific article readers. We then conduct a range of experiments across state-of-the-art commercial and open-source language models to identify how to best provide missing-but-relevant information to models for our task. Finally, we develop QaDecontext, a simple prompting strategy inspired by our framework that improves over end-to-end prompting. We conclude with analysis that finds, while rewriting is easy, question generation and answering remain challenging for today's models., Comment: 19 pages, 2 figures, 8 tables, EMNLP2023

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance., Comment: 10 pages, 6 figures, 1 table, working paper

Scholarly publications are key to the transfer of knowledge from scholars to others. However, research papers are information-dense, and as the volume of the scientific literature grows, the need for new technology to support the reading process grows. In contrast to the process of finding papers, which has been transformed by Internet technology, the experience of reading research papers has changed little in decades. The PDF format for sharing research papers is widely used due to its portability, but it has significant downsides including: static content, poor accessibility for low-vision readers, and difficulty reading on mobile devices. This paper explores the question "Can recent advances in AI and HCI power intelligent, interactive, and accessible reading interfaces -- even for legacy PDFs?" We describe the Semantic Reader Project, a collaborative effort across multiple institutions to explore automatic creation of dynamic reading interfaces for research papers. Through this project, we've developed ten research prototype interfaces and conducted usability studies with more than 300 participants and real-world users showing improved reading experiences for scholars. We've also released a production reading interface for research papers that will incorporate the best features as they mature. We structure this paper around challenges scholars and the public face when reading research papers -- Discovery, Efficiency, Comprehension, Synthesis, and Accessibility -- and present an overview of our progress and remaining open challenges.

Researchers need to keep up with immense literatures, though it is time-consuming and difficult to do so. In this paper, we investigate the role that intelligent interfaces can play in helping researchers skim papers, that is, rapidly reviewing a paper to attain a cursory understanding of its contents. After conducting formative interviews and a design probe, we suggest that skimming aids should aim to thread the needle of highlighting content that is simultaneously diverse, evenly-distributed, and important. We introduce Scim, a novel intelligent skimming interface that reifies this aim, designed to support the skimming process by highlighting salient paper contents to direct a skimmer's focus. Key to the design is that the highlights are faceted by content type, evenly-distributed across a paper, with a density configurable by readers at both the global and local level. We evaluate Scim with an in-lab usability study and deployment study, revealing how skimming aids can support readers throughout the skimming experience and yielding design considerations and tensions for the design of future intelligent skimming tools., Comment: Updated to reflect version published in proceedings of IUI 2023

Despite the central importance of research papers to scientific progress, they can be difficult to read. Comprehension is often stymied when the information needed to understand a passage resides somewhere else: in another section, or in another paper. In this work, we envision how interfaces can bring definitions of technical terms and symbols to readers when and where they need them most. We introduce ScholarPhi, an augmented reading interface with four novel features: (1) tooltips that surface position-sensitive definitions from elsewhere in a paper, (2) a filter over the paper that "declutters" it to reveal how the term or symbol is used across the paper, (3) automatic equation diagrams that expose multiple definitions in parallel, and (4) an automatically generated glossary of important terms and symbols. A usability study showed that the tool helps researchers of all experience levels read papers. Furthermore, researchers were eager to have ScholarPhi's definitions available to support their everyday reading., Comment: 18 pages, 17 figures, 2 tables. To appear at the 2021 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. For associated video, see https://youtu.be/yYcQf-Yq8B0. v2 changes: expanded discussion of design process and implementation; improved figure design. v3 changes: fixed typo in cell of Table 2; updated HEDDEx and Schwarz-Hearst accuracy in Section 5.3

Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some conditions). While we observed complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by explanations. Rather, explanations increased the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness. Our result poses new challenges for human-centered AI: Can we develop explanatory approaches that encourage appropriate trust in AI, and therefore help generate (or improve) complementary performance?, Comment: CHI'21