Social Good or Scientific Curiosity? Uncovering the Research Framing Behind NLP Artefacts

Clarifying the research framing of NLP artefacts (e.g., models, datasets, etc.) is crucial to aligning research with practical applications. Recent studies manually analyzed NLP research across domains, showing that few papers explicitly identify key stakeholders, intended uses, or appropriate contexts. In this work, we propose to automate this analysis, developing a three-component system that infers research framings by first extracting key elements (means, ends, stakeholders), then linking them through interpretable rules and contextual reasoning. We evaluate our approach on two domains: automated fact-checking using an existing dataset, and hate speech detection for which we annotate a new dataset-achieving consistent improvements over strong LLM baselines. Finally, we apply our system to recent automated fact-checking papers and uncover three notable trends: a rise in vague or underspecified research goals, increased emphasis on scientific exploration over application, and a shift toward supporting human fact-checkers rather than pursuing full automation.

Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance

Scientific writing is a challenging task, particularly for novice researchers who often rely on feedback from experienced peers. Recent work has primarily focused on improving surface form and style rather than manuscript content. In this paper, we propose a novel task: automated focused feedback generation for scientific writing assistance. We present SWIF$^{2}$T: a Scientific WrIting Focused Feedback Tool. It is designed to generate specific, actionable and coherent comments, which identify weaknesses in a scientific paper and/or propose revisions to it. Our approach consists of four components - planner, investigator, reviewer and controller - leveraging multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) to implement them. We compile a dataset of 300 peer reviews citing weaknesses in scientific papers and conduct human evaluation. The results demonstrate the superiority in specificity, reading comprehension, and overall helpfulness of SWIF$^{2}$T's feedback compared to other approaches. In our analysis, we also identified cases where automatically generated reviews were judged better than human ones, suggesting opportunities for integration of AI-generated feedback in scientific writing.

PRobELM: Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models

This paper introduces PRobELM (Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models), a benchmark designed to assess language models' ability to discern more plausible from less plausible scenarios through their parametric knowledge. While benchmarks such as TruthfulQA emphasise factual accuracy or truthfulness, and others such as COPA explore plausible scenarios without explicitly incorporating world knowledge, PRobELM seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating models' capabilities to prioritise plausible scenarios that leverage world knowledge over less plausible alternatives. This design allows us to assess the potential of language models for downstream use cases such as literature-based discovery where the focus is on identifying information that is likely but not yet known. Our benchmark is constructed from a dataset curated from Wikidata edit histories, tailored to align the temporal bounds of the training data for the evaluated models. PRobELM facilitates the evaluation of language models across multiple prompting types, including statement, text completion, and question-answering. Experiments with 10 models of various sizes and architectures on the relationship between model scales, training recency, and plausibility performance, reveal that factual accuracy does not directly correlate with plausibility performance and that up-to-date training data enhances plausibility assessment across different model architectures.

Automated Fact-Checking in Dialogue: Are Specialized Models Needed?

Prior research has shown that typical fact-checking models for stand-alone claims struggle with claims made in dialogues. As a solution, fine-tuning these models on labelled dialogue data has been proposed. However, creating separate models for each use case is impractical, and we show that fine-tuning models for dialogue results in poor performance on typical fact-checking. To overcome this challenge, we present techniques that allow us to use the same models for both dialogue and typical fact-checking. These mainly focus on retrieval adaptation and transforming conversational inputs so that they can be accurately predicted by models trained on stand-alone claims. We demonstrate that a typical fact-checking model incorporating these techniques is competitive with state-of-the-art models fine-tuned for dialogue, while maintaining its accuracy on stand-alone claims.