We introduce the task of automatically revising scientific papers based on peer feedback and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits. The data is drawn from real reviewer-author interactions from computer science, and we provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author in response. We automatically create a high-precision silver training set, as well as an expert-labeled test set that shows high inter-annotator agreement. In experiments with 10 models covering the state of the art, we find that they struggle even to identify which edits correspond to a comment—especially when the relationship between the edit and the comment is indirect and requires reasoning to uncover. We also extensively analyze GPT-4’s ability to generate edits given a comment and the original paper. We find that it often succeeds on a superficial level, but tends to rigidly follow the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and lacks technical details compared to human-written edits.

Real-world applications of neural language models often involve running many different models over the same corpus. The high computational cost of these runs has led to interest in techniques that can reuse the contextualized embeddings produced in previous runs to speed training and inference of future ones. We refer to this approach as embedding recycling (ER). While multiple ER techniques have been proposed, their practical effectiveness is still unknown because existing evaluations consider very few models and do not adequately account for overhead costs. We perform an extensive evaluation of ER across eight different models (17 to 900 million parameters) and fourteen tasks in English. We show how a simple ER technique that caches activations from an intermediate layer of a pretrained model, and learns task-specific adapters on the later layers, is broadly effective. For the best-performing baseline in our experiments (DeBERTa-v2 XL), adding a precomputed cache results in a 90% speedup during training and 87-91% speedup for inference, with negligible impact on accuracy. Our analysis reveals important areas of future work.

Learned representations of scientific documents can serve as valuable input features for downstream tasks without further fine-tuning. However, existing benchmarks for evaluating these representations fail to capture the diversity of relevant tasks. In response, we introduce SciRepEval, the first comprehensive benchmark for training and evaluating scientific document representations. It includes 24 challenging and realistic tasks, 8 of which are new, across four formats: classification, regression, ranking and search. We then use this benchmark to study and improve the generalization ability of scientific document representation models. We show how state-of-the-art models like SPECTER and SciNCL struggle to generalize across the task formats, and that simple multi-task training fails to improve them. However, a new approach that learns multiple embeddings per document, each tailored to a different format, can improve performance. We experiment with task-format-specific control codes and adapters and find they outperform the existing single-embedding state-of-the-art by over 2 points absolute. We release the resulting family of multi-format models, called SPECTER2, for the community to use and build on.

Commonsense reasoning is a critical AI capability, but it is difficult to construct challenging datasets that test common sense. Recent neural question answering systems, based on large pre-trained models of language, have already achieved near-human-level performance on commonsense knowledge benchmarks. These systems do not possess human-level common sense, but are able to exploit limitations of the datasets to achieve human-level scores. We introduce the CODAH dataset, an adversarially-constructed evaluation dataset for testing common sense. CODAH forms a challenging extension to the recently-proposed SWAG dataset, which tests commonsense knowledge using sentence-completion questions that describe situations observed in video. To produce a more difficult dataset, we introduce a novel procedure for question acquisition in which workers author questions designed to target weaknesses of state-of-the-art neural question answering systems. Workers are rewarded for submissions that models fail to answer correctly both before and after fine-tuning (in cross-validation). We create 2.8k questions via this procedure and evaluate the performance of multiple state-of-the-art question answering systems on our dataset. We observe a significant gap between human performance, which is 95.3%, and the performance of the best baseline accuracy of 65.3% by the OpenAI GPT model.