While there has been significant development of models for Plain Language Summarization (PLS), evaluation remains a challenge. PLS lacks a dedicated assessment metric, and the suitability of text generation evaluation metrics is unclear due to the unique transformations involved (e.g., adding background explanations, removing jargon). To address these questions, our study introduces a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate metrics for PLS. We identify four PLS criteria from previous work—informativeness, simplification, coherence, and faithfulness—and define a set of perturbations corresponding to these criteria that sensitive metrics should be able to detect. We apply these perturbations to extractive hypotheses for two PLS datasets to form our testbed. Using APPLS, we assess performance of 14 metrics, including automated scores, lexical features, and LLM prompt-based evaluations. Our analysis reveals that while some current metrics show sensitivity to specific criteria, no single method captures all four criteria simultaneously. We therefore recommend a suite of automated metrics be used to capture PLS quality along all relevant criteria. This work contributes the first meta-evaluation testbed for PLS and a comprehensive evaluation of existing metrics.

Literature review requires researchers to synthesize a large amount of information and is increasingly challenging as the scientific literature expands. In this work, we investigate the potential of LLMs for producing hierarchical organizations of scientific studies to assist researchers with literature review. We define hierarchical organizations as tree structures where nodes refer to topical categories and every node is linked to the studies assigned to that category. Our naive LLM-based pipeline for hierarchy generation from a set of studies produces promising yet imperfect hierarchies, motivating us to collect CHIME, an expert-curated dataset for this task focused on biomedicine. Given the challenging and time-consuming nature of building hierarchies from scratch, we use a human-in-the-loop process in which experts correct errors (both links between categories and study assignment) in LLM-generated hierarchies. CHIME contains 2,174 LLM-generated hierarchies covering 472 topics, and expert-corrected hierarchies for a subset of 100 topics. Expert corrections allow us to quantify LLM performance, and we find that while they are quite good at generating and organizing categories, their assignment of studies to categories could be improved. We attempt to train a corrector model with human feedback which improves study assignment by 12.6 F1 points. We release our dataset and models to encourage research on developing better assistive tools for literature review.

The correct model response in the face of uncertainty is to abstain from answering a question so as not to mislead the user. In this work, we study the ability of LLMs to abstain from answering context-dependent science questions when provided insufficient or incorrect context. We probe model sensitivity in several settings: removing gold context, replacing gold context with irrelevant context, and providing additional context beyond what is given. In experiments on four QA datasets with six LLMs, we show that performance varies greatly across models, across the type of context provided, and also by question type; in particular, many LLMs seem unable to abstain from answering boolean questions using standard QA prompts. Our analysis also highlights the unexpected impact of abstention performance on QA task accuracy. Counter-intuitively, in some settings, replacing gold context with irrelevant context or adding irrelevant context to gold context can improve abstention performance in a way that results in improvements in task performance. Our results imply that changes are needed in QA dataset design and evaluation to more effectively assess the correctness and downstream impacts of model abstention.

Scientific jargon can confuse researchers when they read materials from other domains. Identifying and translating jargon for individual researchers could speed up research, but current methods of jargon identification mainly use corpus-level familiarity indicators rather than modeling researcher-specific needs, which can vary greatly based on each researcher’s background. We collect a dataset of over 10K term familiarity annotations from 11 computer science researchers for terms drawn from 100 paper abstracts. Analysis of this data reveals that jargon familiarity and information needs vary widely across annotators, even within the same sub-domain (e.g., NLP). We investigate features representing domain, subdomain, and individual knowledge to predict individual jargon familiarity. We compare supervised and prompt-based approaches, finding that prompt-based methods using information about the individual researcher (e.g., personal publications, self-defined subfield of research) yield the highest accuracy, though the task remains difficult and supervised approaches have lower false positive rates. This research offers insights into features and methods for the novel task of integrating personal data into scientific jargon identification.

Topic pages aggregate useful information about an entity or concept into a single succinct and accessible article. Automated creation of topic pages would enable their rapid curation as information resources, providing an alternative to traditional web search. While most prior work has focused on generating topic pages about biographical entities, in this work, we develop a completely automated process to generate high-quality topic pages for scientific entities, with a focus on biomedical concepts. We release TOPICAL, a web app and associated open-source code, comprising a model pipeline combining retrieval, clustering, and prompting, that makes it easy for anyone to generate topic pages for a wide variety of biomedical entities on demand. In a human evaluation of 150 diverse topic pages generated using TOPICAL, we find that the vast majority were considered relevant, accurate, and coherent, with correct supporting citations. We make all code publicly available and host a free-to-use web app at: https://s2-topical.apps.allenai.org.

Due to rapidly changing and advancing science, it is important to check the veracity of scientific claims and whether they are supported by research evidence. Previous versions of this task depended on supervised training, where labeled datasets were constructed through manual claim writing and evidence identification, sometimes coupled with mining citation relationships in papers. In this work, we investigate whether zero-shot scientific claim verification could be enabled using large language models (LLMs) and distant supervision examples taken directly from citation texts. We derive an in-context learning (ICL) dataset, SCitance, consisting of citation sentences (“citances”), LLM-generated negations, evidence documents, and veracity labels, and find that prompting GPT-4 with ICL examples from this dataset yields comparable performance (within 1 point F1) to previous finetuned models trained on manually curated claim-evidence pairs. Our results suggest that prompting LLMs with citance-evidence pairs directly poses a viable alternative to finetuning scientific claim verification models with manually-curated data.

Knowing whether scientific claims are supported by evidence is fundamental to scholarly communication and evidence-based decision-making. We present our approach to Task 1 of the Context24 Shared Task—Contextualizing Scientific Figures and Tables (SDP@ACL2024), which focuses on identifying multimodal evidence from scientific publications that support claims. We finetune CLIP, a state-of-the-art model for image-text similarity tasks, to identify and rank figures and tables in papers that substantiate specific claims. Our methods focus on text and image preprocessing techniques and augmenting the organizer-provided training data with labeled examples from the SciMMIR and MedICaT datasets. Our best-performing model achieved NDCG@5 and NDCG@10 values of 0.26 and 0.30, respectively, on the Context24 test split. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of data augmentation and preprocessing in improving the model’s ability in evidence matching.

Optimizing antibiotic dosing recommendations is a vital aspect of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs aimed at combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a significant public health concern, where inappropriate dosing contributes to the selection of AMR pathogens. A key challenge is the extraction of dosing information, which is embedded in free-text clinical records and necessitates numerical transformations. This paper assesses the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) in extracting essential prescription attributes such as dose, duration, active ingredient, and indication. We evaluate methods to optimize LLMs on this task against a baseline BERT-based ensemble model. Our findings reveal that LLMs can achieve exceptional accuracy by combining probabilistic predictions with deterministic calculations, enforced through functional prompting, to ensure data types and execute necessary arithmetic. This research demonstrates new prospects for automating aspects of AMS when no training data is available.

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

Multi-document summarization (MDS) assumes a set of topic-related documents are provided as input. In practice, this document set is not always available; it would need to be retrieved given an information need, i.e. a question or topic statement, a setting we dub “open-domain’ MDS. We study this more challenging setting by formalizing the task and bootstrapping it using existing datasets, retrievers and summarizers. Via extensive automatic and human evaluation, we determine: (1) state-of-the-art summarizers suffer large reductions in performance when applied to open-domain MDS, (2) additional training in the open-domain setting can reduce this sensitivity to imperfect retrieval, and (3) summarizers are insensitive to the retrieval of duplicate documents and the order of retrieved documents, but highly sensitive to other errors, like the retrieval of irrelevant documents. Based on our results, we provide practical guidelines to enable future work on open-domain MDS, e.g. how to choose the number of retrieved documents to summarize. Our results suggest that new retrieval and summarization methods and annotated resources for training and evaluation are necessary for further progress in the open-domain setting.

Automated scientific fact checking is difficult due to the complexity of scientific language and a lack of significant amounts of training data, as annotation requires domain expertise. To address this challenge, we propose scientific claim generation, the task of generating one or more atomic and verifiable claims from scientific sentences, and demonstrate its usefulness in zero-shot fact checking for biomedical claims. We propose CLAIMGEN-BART, a new supervised method for generating claims supported by the literature, as well as KBIN, a novel method for generating claim negations. Additionally, we adapt an existing unsupervised entity-centric method of claim generation to biomedical claims, which we call CLAIMGEN-ENTITY. Experiments on zero-shot fact checking demonstrate that both CLAIMGEN-ENTITY and CLAIMGEN-BART, coupled with KBIN, achieve up to 90% performance of fully supervised models trained on manually annotated claims and evidence. A rigorous evaluation study demonstrates significant improvement in generated claim and negation quality over existing baselines

The scientific claim verification task requires an NLP system to label scientific documents which Support or Refute an input claim, and to select evidentiary sentences (or rationales) justifying each predicted label. In this work, we present MultiVerS, which predicts a fact-checking label and identifies rationales in a multitask fashion based on a shared encoding of the claim and full document context. This approach accomplishes two key modeling goals. First, it ensures that all relevant contextual information is incorporated into each labeling decision. Second, it enables the model to learn from instances annotated with a document-level fact-checking label, but lacking sentence-level rationales. This allows MultiVerS to perform weakly-supervised domain adaptation by training on scientific documents labeled using high-precision heuristics. Our approach outperforms two competitive baselines on three scientific claim verification datasets, with particularly strong performance in zero / few-shot domain adaptation experiments. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/dwadden/multivers.

We present BEEP (Biomedical Evidence-Enhanced Predictions), a novel approach for clinical outcome prediction that retrieves patient-specific medical literature and incorporates it into predictive models. Based on each individual patient’s clinical notes, we train language models (LMs) to find relevant papers and fuse them with information from notes to predict outcomes such as in-hospital mortality. We develop methods to retrieve literature based on noisy, information-dense patient notes, and to augment existing outcome prediction models with retrieved papers in a manner that maximizes predictive accuracy. Our approach boosts predictive performance on three important clinical tasks in comparison to strong recent LM baselines, increasing F1 by up to 5 points and precision@Top-K by a large margin of over 25%.

While research on scientific claim verification has led to the development of powerful systems that appear to approach human performance, these approaches have yet to be tested in a realistic setting against large corpora of scientific literature. Moving to this open-domain evaluation setting, however, poses unique challenges; in particular, it is infeasible to exhaustively annotate all evidence documents. In this work, we present SciFact-Open, a new test collection designed to evaluate the performance of scientific claim verification systems on a corpus of 500K research abstracts. Drawing upon pooling techniques from information retrieval, we collect evidence for scientific claims by pooling and annotating the top predictions of four state-of-the-art scientific claim verification models. We find that systems developed on smaller corpora struggle to generalize to SciFact-Open, exhibiting performance drops of at least 15 F1. In addition, analysis of the evidence in SciFact-Open reveals interesting phenomena likely to appear when claim verification systems are deployed in practice, e.g., cases where the evidence supports only a special case of the claim. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/dwadden/scifact-open.

Accurately extracting structured content from PDFs is a critical first step for NLP over scientific papers. Recent work has improved extraction accuracy by incorporating elementary layout information, for example, each token’s 2D position on the page, into language model pretraining. We introduce new methods that explicitly model VIsual LAyout (VILA) groups, that is, text lines or text blocks, to further improve performance. In our I-VILA approach, we show that simply inserting special tokens denoting layout group boundaries into model inputs can lead to a 1.9% Macro F1 improvement in token classification. In the H-VILA approach, we show that hierarchical encoding of layout-groups can result in up to 47% inference time reduction with less than 0.8% Macro F1 loss. Unlike prior layout-aware approaches, our methods do not require expensive additional pretraining, only fine-tuning, which we show can reduce training cost by up to 95%. Experiments are conducted on a newly curated evaluation suite, S2-VLUE, that unifies existing automatically labeled datasets and includes a new dataset of manual annotations covering diverse papers from 19 scientific disciplines. Pre-trained weights, benchmark datasets, and source code are available at https://github.com/allenai/VILA.

With the ever-increasing pace of research and high volume of scholarly communication, scholars face a daunting task. Not only must they keep up with the growing literature in their own and related fields, scholars increasingly also need to rebut pseudo-science and disinformation. These needs have motivated an increasing focus on computational methods for enhancing search, summarization, and analysis of scholarly documents. However, the various strands of research on scholarly document processing remain fragmented. To reach out to the broader NLP and AI/ML community, pool distributed efforts in this area, and enable shared access to published research, we held the 3rd Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) at COLING as a hybrid event (https://sdproc.org/2022/). The SDP workshop consisted of a research track, three invited talks and five Shared Tasks: 1) MSLR22: Multi-Document Summarization for Literature Reviews, 2) DAGPap22: Detecting automatically generated scientific papers, 3) SV-Ident 2022: Survey Variable Identification in Social Science Publications, 4) SKGG: Scholarly Knowledge Graph Generation, 5) MuP 2022: Multi Perspective Scientific Document Summarization. The program was geared towards NLP, information retrieval, and data mining for scholarly documents, with an emphasis on identifying and providing solutions to open challenges.

We provide an overview of the MSLR2022 shared task on multi-document summarization for literature reviews. The shared task was hosted at the Third Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) Workshop at COLING 2022. For this task, we provided data consisting of gold summaries extracted from review papers along with the groups of input abstracts that were synthesized into these summaries, split into two subtasks. In total, six teams participated, making 10 public submissions, 6 to the Cochrane subtask and 4 to the MSˆ2 subtask. The top scoring systems reported over 2 points ROUGE-L improvement on the Cochrane subtask, though performance improvements are not consistently reported across all automated evaluation metrics; qualitative examination of the results also suggests the inadequacy of current evaluation metrics for capturing factuality and consistency on this task. Significant work is needed to improve system performance, and more importantly, to develop better methods for automatically evaluating performance on this task.

To assess the effectiveness of any medical intervention, researchers must conduct a time-intensive and manual literature review. NLP systems can help to automate or assist in parts of this expensive process. In support of this goal, we release MSˆ2 (Multi-Document Summarization of Medical Studies), a dataset of over 470k documents and 20K summaries derived from the scientific literature. This dataset facilitates the development of systems that can assess and aggregate contradictory evidence across multiple studies, and is the first large-scale, publicly available multi-document summarization dataset in the biomedical domain. We experiment with a summarization system based on BART, with promising early results, though significant work remains to achieve higher summarization quality. We formulate our summarization inputs and targets in both free text and structured forms and modify a recently proposed metric to assess the quality of our system’s generated summaries. Data and models are available at https://github.com/allenai/ms2.

With the ever-increasing pace of research and high volume of scholarly communication, scholars face a daunting task. Not only must they keep up with the growing literature in their own and related fields, scholars increasingly also need to rebut pseudo-science and disinformation. These needs have motivated an increasing focus on computational methods for enhancing search, summarization, and analysis of scholarly documents. However, the various strands of research on scholarly document processing remain fragmented. To reach out to the broader NLP and AI/ML community, pool distributed efforts in this area, and enable shared access to published research, we held the 2nd Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) at NAACL 2021 as a virtual event (https://sdproc.org/2021/). The SDP workshop consisted of a research track, three invited talks, and three Shared Tasks (LongSumm 2021, SCIVER, and 3C). The program was geared towards the application of NLP, information retrieval, and data mining for scholarly documents, with an emphasis on identifying and providing solutions to open challenges.

We introduce S2ORC, a large corpus of 81.1M English-language academic papers spanning many academic disciplines. The corpus consists of rich metadata, paper abstracts, resolved bibliographic references, as well as structured full text for 8.1M open access papers. Full text is annotated with automatically-detected inline mentions of citations, figures, and tables, each linked to their corresponding paper objects. In S2ORC, we aggregate papers from hundreds of academic publishers and digital archives into a unified source, and create the largest publicly-available collection of machine-readable academic text to date. We hope this resource will facilitate research and development of tools and tasks for text mining over academic text.

Dietary supplements are used by a large portion of the population, but information on their pharmacologic interactions is incomplete. To address this challenge, we present SUPP.AI, an application for browsing evidence of supplement-drug interactions (SDIs) extracted from the biomedical literature. We train a model to automatically extract supplement information and identify such interactions from the scientific literature. To address the lack of labeled data for SDI identification, we use labels of the closely related task of identifying drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for supervision. We fine-tune the contextualized word representations of the RoBERTa language model using labeled DDI data, and apply the fine-tuned model to identify supplement interactions. We extract 195k evidence sentences from 22M articles (P=0.82, R=0.58, F1=0.68) for 60k interactions. We create the SUPP.AI application for users to search evidence sentences extracted by our model. SUPP.AI is an attempt to close the information gap on dietary supplements by making up-to-date evidence on SDIs more discoverable for researchers, clinicians, and consumers. An informational video on how to use SUPP.AI is available at: https://youtu.be/dR0ucKdORwc

The COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) is a growing resource of scientific papers on COVID-19 and related historical coronavirus research. CORD-19 is designed to facilitate the development of text mining and information retrieval systems over its rich collection of metadata and structured full text papers. Since its release, CORD-19 has been downloaded over 200K times and has served as the basis of many COVID-19 text mining and discovery systems. In this article, we describe the mechanics of dataset construction, highlighting challenges and key design decisions, provide an overview of how CORD-19 has been used, and describe several shared tasks built around the dataset. We hope this resource will continue to bring together the computing community, biomedical experts, and policy makers in the search for effective treatments and management policies for COVID-19.

Understanding the relationship between figures and text is key to scientific document understanding. Medical figures in particular are quite complex, often consisting of several subfigures (75% of figures in our dataset), with detailed text describing their content. Previous work studying figures in scientific papers focused on classifying figure content rather than understanding how images relate to the text. To address challenges in figure retrieval and figure-to-text alignment, we introduce MedICaT, a dataset of medical images in context. MedICaT consists of 217K images from 131K open access biomedical papers, and includes captions, inline references for 74% of figures, and manually annotated subfigures and subcaptions for a subset of figures. Using MedICaT, we introduce the task of subfigure to subcaption alignment in compound figures and demonstrate the utility of inline references in image-text matching. Our data and code can be accessed at https://github.com/allenai/medicat.

We introduce scientific claim verification, a new task to select abstracts from the research literature containing evidence that SUPPORTS or REFUTES a given scientific claim, and to identify rationales justifying each decision. To study this task, we construct SciFact, a dataset of 1.4K expert-written scientific claims paired with evidence-containing abstracts annotated with labels and rationales. We develop baseline models for SciFact, and demonstrate that simple domain adaptation techniques substantially improve performance compared to models trained on Wikipedia or political news. We show that our system is able to verify claims related to COVID-19 by identifying evidence from the CORD-19 corpus. Our experiments indicate that SciFact will provide a challenging testbed for the development of new systems designed to retrieve and reason over corpora containing specialized domain knowledge. Data and code for this new task are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/scifact. A leaderboard and COVID-19 fact-checking demo are available at https://scifact.apps.allenai.org.

We describe a deployed scalable system for organizing published scientific literature into a heterogeneous graph to facilitate algorithmic manipulation and discovery. The resulting literature graph consists of more than 280M nodes, representing papers, authors, entities and various interactions between them (e.g., authorships, citations, entity mentions). We reduce literature graph construction into familiar NLP tasks (e.g., entity extraction and linking), point out research challenges due to differences from standard formulations of these tasks, and report empirical results for each task. The methods described in this paper are used to enable semantic features in www.semanticscholar.org.

Ontology alignment is the task of identifying semantically equivalent entities from two given ontologies. Different ontologies have different representations of the same entity, resulting in a need to de-duplicate entities when merging ontologies. We propose a method for enriching entities in an ontology with external definition and context information, and use this additional information for ontology alignment. We develop a neural architecture capable of encoding the additional information when available, and show that the addition of external data results in an F1-score of 0.69 on the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) largebio SNOMED-NCI subtask, comparable with the entity-level matchers in a SOTA system.