What's under the hood: Investigating Automatic Metrics on Meeting Summarization

Meeting summarization has become a critical task considering the increase in online interactions. While new techniques are introduced regularly, their evaluation uses metrics not designed to capture meeting-specific errors, undermining effective evaluation. This paper investigates what the frequently used automatic metrics capture and which errors they mask by correlating automatic metric scores with human evaluations across a broad error taxonomy. We commence with a comprehensive literature review on English meeting summarization to define key challenges like speaker dynamics and contextual turn-taking and error types such as missing information and linguistic inaccuracy, concepts previously loosely defined in the field. We examine the relationship between characteristic challenges and errors by using annotated transcripts and summaries from Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence and autoregressive models from the general summary QMSum dataset. Through experimental validation, we find that different model architectures respond variably to challenges in meeting transcripts, resulting in different pronounced links between challenges and errors. Current default-used metrics struggle to capture observable errors, showing weak to mid-correlations, while a third of the correlations show trends of error masking. Only a subset reacts accurately to specific errors, while most correlations show either unresponsiveness or failure to reflect the error's impact on summary quality.

Can LLMs Master Math? Investigating Large Language Models on Math Stack Exchange

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various natural language tasks, often achieving performances that surpass those of humans. Despite these advancements, the domain of mathematics presents a distinctive challenge, primarily due to its specialized structure and the precision it demands. In this study, we adopted a two-step approach for investigating the proficiency of LLMs in answering mathematical questions. First, we employ the most effective LLMs, as identified by their performance on math question-answer benchmarks, to generate answers to 78 questions from the Math Stack Exchange (MSE). Second, a case analysis is conducted on the LLM that showed the highest performance, focusing on the quality and accuracy of its answers through manual evaluation. We found that GPT-4 performs best (nDCG of 0.48 and P@10 of 0.37) amongst existing LLMs fine-tuned for answering mathematics questions and outperforms the current best approach on ArqMATH3 Task1, considering P@10. Our Case analysis indicates that while the GPT-4 can generate relevant responses in certain instances, it does not consistently answer all questions accurately. This paper explores the current limitations of LLMs in navigating complex mathematical problem-solving. Through case analysis, we shed light on the gaps in LLM capabilities within mathematics, thereby setting the stage for future research and advancements in AI-driven mathematical reasoning. We make our code and findings publicly available for research: \url{https://github.com/gipplab/LLM-Investig-MathStackExchange}

Citation Amnesia: NLP and Other Academic Fields Are in a Citation Age Recession

This study examines the tendency to cite older work across 20 fields of study over 43 years (1980--2023). We put NLP's propensity to cite older work in the context of these 20 other fields to analyze whether NLP shows similar temporal citation patterns to these other fields over time or whether differences can be observed. Our analysis, based on a dataset of approximately 240 million papers, reveals a broader scientific trend: many fields have markedly declined in citing older works (e.g., psychology, computer science). We term this decline a 'citation age recession', analogous to how economists define periods of reduced economic activity. The trend is strongest in NLP and ML research (-12.8% and -5.5% in citation age from previous peaks). Our results suggest that citing more recent works is not directly driven by the growth in publication rates (-3.4% across fields; -5.2% in humanities; -5.5% in formal sciences) -- even when controlling for an increase in the volume of papers. Our findings raise questions about the scientific community's engagement with past literature, particularly for NLP, and the potential consequences of neglecting older but relevant research. The data and a demo showcasing our results are publicly available.

Text-Guided Image Clustering

Image clustering divides a collection of images into meaningful groups, typically interpreted post-hoc via human-given annotations. Those are usually in the form of text, begging the question of using text as an abstraction for image clustering. Current image clustering methods, however, neglect the use of generated textual descriptions. We, therefore, propose Text-Guided Image Clustering, i.e., generating text using image captioning and visual question-answering (VQA) models and subsequently clustering the generated text. Further, we introduce a novel approach to inject task- or domain knowledge for clustering by prompting VQA models. Across eight diverse image clustering datasets, our results show that the obtained text representations often outperform image features. Additionally, we propose a counting-based cluster explainability method. Our evaluations show that the derived keyword-based explanations describe clusters better than the respective cluster accuracy suggests. Overall, this research challenges traditional approaches and paves the way for a paradigm shift in image clustering, using generated text.

Taxonomy of Mathematical Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a pressing concern, even more so with the availability of large language models. Existing plagiarism detection systems reliably find copied and moderately reworded text but fail for idea plagiarism, especially in mathematical science, which heavily uses formal mathematical notation. We make two contributions. First, we establish a taxonomy of mathematical content reuse by annotating potentially plagiarised 122 scientific document pairs. Second, we analyze the best-performing approaches to detect plagiarism and mathematical content similarity on the newly established taxonomy. We found that the best-performing methods for plagiarism and math content similarity achieve an overall detection score (PlagDet) of 0.06 and 0.16, respectively. The best-performing methods failed to detect most cases from all seven newly established math similarity types. Outlined contributions will benefit research in plagiarism detection systems, recommender systems, question-answering systems, and search engines. We make our experiment's code and annotated dataset available to the community: https://github.com/gipplab/Taxonomy-of-Mathematical-Plagiarism

The Media Bias Taxonomy: A Systematic Literature Review on the Forms and Automated Detection of Media Bias

The way the media presents events can significantly affect public perception, which in turn can alter people's beliefs and views. Media bias describes a one-sided or polarizing perspective on a topic. This article summarizes the research on computational methods to detect media bias by systematically reviewing 3140 research papers published between 2019 and 2022. To structure our review and support a mutual understanding of bias across research domains, we introduce the Media Bias Taxonomy, which provides a coherent overview of the current state of research on media bias from different perspectives. We show that media bias detection is a highly active research field, in which transformer-based classification approaches have led to significant improvements in recent years. These improvements include higher classification accuracy and the ability to detect more fine-granular types of bias. However, we have identified a lack of interdisciplinarity in existing projects, and a need for more awareness of the various types of media bias to support methodologically thorough performance evaluations of media bias detection systems. Concluding from our analysis, we see the integration of recent machine learning advancements with reliable and diverse bias assessment strategies from other research areas as the most promising area for future research contributions in the field.

We are Who We Cite: Bridges of Influence Between Natural Language Processing and Other Academic Fields

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is poised to substantially influence the world. However, significant progress comes hand-in-hand with substantial risks. Addressing them requires broad engagement with various fields of study. Yet, little empirical work examines the state of such engagement (past or current). In this paper, we quantify the degree of influence between 23 fields of study and NLP (on each other). We analyzed ~77k NLP papers, ~3.1m citations from NLP papers to other papers, and ~1.8m citations from other papers to NLP papers. We show that, unlike most fields, the cross-field engagement of NLP, measured by our proposed Citation Field Diversity Index (CFDI), has declined from 0.58 in 1980 to 0.31 in 2022 (an all-time low). In addition, we find that NLP has grown more insular -- citing increasingly more NLP papers and having fewer papers that act as bridges between fields. NLP citations are dominated by computer science; Less than 8% of NLP citations are to linguistics, and less than 3% are to math and psychology. These findings underscore NLP's urgent need to reflect on its engagement with various fields.

Paraphrase Types for Generation and Detection

Current approaches in paraphrase generation and detection heavily rely on a single general similarity score, ignoring the intricate linguistic properties of language. This paper introduces two new tasks to address this shortcoming by considering paraphrase types - specific linguistic perturbations at particular text positions. We name these tasks Paraphrase Type Generation and Paraphrase Type Detection. Our results suggest that while current techniques perform well in a binary classification scenario, i.e., paraphrased or not, the inclusion of fine-grained paraphrase types poses a significant challenge. While most approaches are good at generating and detecting general semantic similar content, they fail to understand the intrinsic linguistic variables they manipulate. Models trained in generating and identifying paraphrase types also show improvements in tasks without them. In addition, scaling these models further improves their ability to understand paraphrase types. We believe paraphrase types can unlock a new paradigm for developing paraphrase models and solving tasks in the future.