The Semantic Reader Project: Augmenting Scholarly Documents through AI-Powered Interactive Reading Interfaces

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.

Cluster-Guided Label Generation in Extreme Multi-Label Classification

For extreme multi-label classification (XMC), existing classification-based models poorly perform for tail labels and often ignore the semantic relations among labels, like treating "Wikipedia" and "Wiki" as independent and separate labels. In this paper, we cast XMC as a generation task (XLGen), where we benefit from pre-trained text-to-text models. However, generating labels from the extremely large label space is challenging without any constraints or guidance. We, therefore, propose to guide label generation using label cluster information to hierarchically generate lower-level labels. We also find that frequency-based label ordering and using decoding ensemble methods are critical factors for the improvements in XLGen. XLGen with cluster guidance significantly outperforms the classification and generation baselines on tail labels, and also generally improves the overall performance in four popular XMC benchmarks. In human evaluation, we also find XLGen generates unseen but plausible labels. Our code is now available at https://github.com/alexa/xlgen-eacl-2023.

Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information

In NLP annotation, it is common to have multiple annotators label the text and then obtain the ground truth labels based on the agreement of major annotators. However, annotators are individuals with different backgrounds, and minors' opinions should not be simply ignored. As annotation tasks become subjective and topics are controversial in modern NLP tasks, we need NLP systems that can represent people's diverse voices on subjective matters and predict the level of diversity. This paper examines whether the text of the task and annotators' demographic background information can be used to estimate the level of disagreement among annotators. Particularly, we extract disagreement labels from the annotators' voting histories in the five subjective datasets, and then fine-tune language models to predict annotators' disagreement. Our results show that knowing annotators' demographic information, like gender, ethnicity, and education level, helps predict disagreements. In order to distinguish the disagreement from the inherent controversy from text content and the disagreement in the annotators' different perspectives, we simulate everyone's voices with different combinations of annotators' artificial demographics and examine its variance of the finetuned disagreement predictor. Our paper aims to improve the annotation process for more efficient and inclusive NLP systems through a novel disagreement prediction mechanism. Our code and dataset are publicly available.

Quirk or Palmer: A Comparative Study of Modal Verb Frameworks with Annotated Datasets

Modal verbs, such as "can", "may", and "must", are commonly used in daily communication to convey the speaker's perspective related to the likelihood and/or mode of the proposition. They can differ greatly in meaning depending on how they're used and the context of a sentence (e.g. "They 'must' help each other out." vs. "They 'must' have helped each other out.") Despite their practical importance in natural language understanding, linguists have yet to agree on a single, prominent framework for the categorization of modal verb senses. This lack of agreement stems from high degrees of flexibility and polysemy from the modal verbs, making it more difficult for researchers to incorporate insights from this family of words into their work. This work presents Moverb dataset, which consists of 27,240 annotations of modal verb senses over 4,540 utterances containing one or more sentences from social conversations. Each utterance is annotated by three annotators using two different theoretical frameworks (i.e., Quirk and Palmer) of modal verb senses. We observe that both frameworks have similar inter-annotator agreements, despite having different numbers of sense types (8 for Quirk and 3 for Palmer). With the RoBERTa-based classifiers fine-tuned on \dataset, we achieve F1 scores of 82.2 and 78.3 on Quirk and Palmer, respectively, showing that modal verb sense disambiguation is not a trivial task. Our dataset will be publicly available with our final version.

A Comparative Study on Textual Saliency of Styles from Eye Tracking, Annotations, and Language Models

There is growing interest in incorporating eye-tracking data and other implicit measures of human language processing into natural language processing (NLP) pipelines. The data from human language processing contain unique insight into human linguistic understanding that could be exploited by language models. However, many unanswered questions remain about the nature of this data and how it can best be utilized in downstream NLP tasks. In this paper, we present eyeStyliency, an eye-tracking dataset for human processing of stylistic text (e.g., politeness). We develop a variety of methods to derive style saliency scores over text using the collected eye dataset. We further investigate how this saliency data compares to both human annotation methods and model-based interpretability metrics. We find that while eye-tracking data is unique, it also intersects with both human annotations and model-based importance scores, providing a possible bridge between human- and machine-based perspectives. In downstream few-shot learning tasks, adding salient words to prompts generally improved style classification, with eye-tracking-based and annotation-based salient words achieving the highest accuracy.

Improving Iterative Text Revision by Learning Where to Edit from Other Revision Tasks

Iterative text revision improves text quality by fixing grammatical errors, rephrasing for better readability or contextual appropriateness, or reorganizing sentence structures throughout a document. Most recent research has focused on understanding and classifying different types of edits in the iterative revision process from human-written text instead of building accurate and robust systems for iterative text revision. In this work, we aim to build an end-to-end text revision system that can iteratively generate helpful edits by explicitly detecting editable spans (where-to-edit) with their corresponding edit intents and then instructing a revision model to revise the detected edit spans. Leveraging datasets from other related text editing NLP tasks, combined with the specification of editable spans, leads our system to more accurately model the process of iterative text refinement, as evidenced by empirical results and human evaluations. Our system significantly outperforms previous baselines on our text revision tasks and other standard text revision tasks, including grammatical error correction, text simplification, sentence fusion, and style transfer. Through extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis, we make vital connections between edit intentions and writing quality, and better computational modeling of iterative text revisions.

RedPen: Region- and Reason-Annotated Dataset of Unnatural Speech

Even with recent advances in speech synthesis models, the evaluation of such models is based purely on human judgement as a single naturalness score, such as the Mean Opinion Score (MOS). The score-based metric does not give any further information about which parts of speech are unnatural or why human judges believe they are unnatural. We present a novel speech dataset, RedPen, with human annotations on unnatural speech regions and their corresponding reasons. RedPen consists of 180 synthesized speeches with unnatural regions annotated by crowd workers; These regions are then reasoned and categorized by error types, such as voice trembling and background noise. We find that our dataset shows a better explanation for unnatural speech regions than the model-driven unnaturalness prediction. Our analysis also shows that each model includes different types of error types. Summing up, our dataset successfully shows the possibility that various error regions and types lie under the single naturalness score. We believe that our dataset will shed light on the evaluation and development of more interpretable speech models in the future. Our dataset will be publicly available upon acceptance.

StyLEx: Explaining Styles with Lexicon-Based Human Perception

Style plays a significant role in how humans express themselves and communicate with others. Large pre-trained language models produce impressive results on various style classification tasks. However, they often learn spurious domain-specific words to make predictions. This incorrect word importance learned by the model often leads to ambiguous token-level explanations which do not align with human perception of linguistic styles. To tackle this challenge, we introduce StyLEx, a model that learns annotated human perceptions of stylistic lexica and uses these stylistic words as additional information for predicting the style of a sentence. Our experiments show that StyLEx can provide human-like stylistic lexical explanations without sacrificing the performance of sentence-level style prediction on both original and out-of-domain datasets. Explanations from StyLEx show higher sufficiency, and plausibility when compared to human annotations, and are also more understandable by human judges compared to the existing widely-used saliency baseline.

Rethinking Annotation: Can Language Learners Contribute?

Researchers have traditionally recruited native speakers to provide annotations for the widely used benchmark datasets. But there are languages for which recruiting native speakers is difficult, and it would help to get learners of those languages to annotate the data. In this paper, we investigate whether language learners can contribute annotations to the benchmark datasets. In a carefully controlled annotation experiment, we recruit 36 language learners, provide two types of additional resources (dictionaries and machine-translated sentences), and perform mini-tests to measure their language proficiency. We target three languages, English, Korean, and Indonesian, and four NLP tasks, sentiment analysis, natural language inference, named entity recognition, and machine reading comprehension. We find that language learners, especially those with intermediate or advanced language proficiency, are able to provide fairly accurate labels with the help of additional resources. Moreover, we show that data annotation improves learners' language proficiency in terms of vocabulary and grammar. The implication of our findings is that broadening the annotation task to include language learners can open up the opportunity to build benchmark datasets for languages for which it is difficult to recruit native speakers.

Read, Revise, Repeat: A System Demonstration for Human-in-the-loop Iterative Text Revision

Revision is an essential part of the human writing process. It tends to be strategic, adaptive, and, more importantly, iterative in nature. Despite the success of large language models on text revision tasks, they are limited to non-iterative, one-shot revisions. Examining and evaluating the capability of large language models for making continuous revisions and collaborating with human writers is a critical step towards building effective writing assistants. In this work, we present a human-in-the-loop iterative text revision system, Read, Revise, Repeat (R3), which aims at achieving high quality text revisions with minimal human efforts by reading model-generated revisions and user feedbacks, revising documents, and repeating human-machine interactions. In R3, a text revision model provides text editing suggestions for human writers, who can accept or reject the suggested edits. The accepted edits are then incorporated into the model for the next iteration of document revision. Writers can therefore revise documents iteratively by interacting with the system and simply accepting/rejecting its suggested edits until the text revision model stops making further revisions or reaches a predefined maximum number of revisions. Empirical experiments show that R3 can generate revisions with comparable acceptance rate to human writers at early revision depths, and the human-machine interaction can get higher quality revisions with fewer iterations and edits. The collected human-model interaction dataset and system code are available at \url{https://github.com/vipulraheja/IteraTeR}. Our system demonstration is available at \url{https://youtu.be/lK08tIpEoaE}.