LongChecker: Improving scientific claim verification by modeling full-abstract context

We introduce the LongChecker system for scientific claim verification. Given a scientific claim and an evidence-containing research abstract, LongChecker predicts a veracity label and identifies supporting rationales in a multitask fashion based on a shared encoding of the claim and abstract. We perform experiments on the SciFact dataset, and find that LongChecker achieves state-of-the-art performance. We conduct analysis to understand the source of this improvement, and find that identifying the relationship between a claim and a rationale reporting a scientific finding often requires understanding the context in which the rationale appears. By making labeling decisions based on all available context, LongChecker achieves better performance on cases requiring this type of understanding. In addition, we show that LongChecker is able to leverage weakly-supervised in-domain data to facilitate few-shot domain adaptation for scientific claim verification.

Exploring The Role of Local and Global Explanations in Recommender Systems

Explanations are well-known to improve recommender systems' transparency. These explanations may be local, explaining an individual recommendation, or global, explaining the recommender model in general. Despite their widespread use, there has been little investigation into the relative benefits of these two approaches. Do they provide the same benefits to users, or do they serve different purposes? We conducted a 30-participant exploratory study and a 30-participant controlled user study with a research-paper recommender system to analyze how providing participants local, global, or both explanations influences user understanding of system behavior. Our results provide evidence suggesting that both explanations are more helpful than either alone for explaining how to improve recommendations, yet both appeared less helpful than global alone for efficiency in identifying false positives and negatives. However, we note that the two explanation approaches may be better compared in the context of a higher-stakes or more opaque domain.

MultiCite: Modeling realistic citations requires moving beyond the single-sentence single-label setting

Citation context analysis (CCA) is an important task in natural language processing that studies how and why scholars discuss each others' work. Despite decades of study, traditional frameworks for CCA have largely relied on overly-simplistic assumptions of how authors cite, which ignore several important phenomena. For instance, scholarly papers often contain rich discussions of cited work that span multiple sentences and express multiple intents concurrently. Yet, CCA is typically approached as a single-sentence, single-label classification task, and thus existing datasets fail to capture this interesting discourse. In our work, we address this research gap by proposing a novel framework for CCA as a document-level context extraction and labeling task. We release MultiCite, a new dataset of 12,653 citation contexts from over 1,200 computational linguistics papers. Not only is it the largest collection of expert-annotated citation contexts to-date, MultiCite contains multi-sentence, multi-label citation contexts within full paper texts. Finally, we demonstrate how our dataset, while still usable for training classic CCA models, also supports the development of new types of models for CCA beyond fixed-width text classification. We release our code and dataset at https://github.com/allenai/multicite.

Overview and Insights from the SciVer Shared Task on Scientific Claim Verification

We present an overview of the SciVer shared task, presented at the 2nd Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) workshop at NAACL 2021. In this shared task, systems were provided a scientific claim and a corpus of research abstracts, and asked to identify which articles SUPPORT or REFUTE the claim as well as provide evidentiary sentences justifying those labels. 11 teams made a total of 14 submissions to the shared task leaderboard, leading to an improvement of more than +23 F1 on the primary task evaluation metric. In addition to surveying the participating systems, we provide several insights into modeling approaches to support continued progress and future research on the important and challenging task of scientific claim verification.

FLEX: Unifying Evaluation for Few-Shot NLP

Few-shot NLP research is highly active, yet conducted in disjoint research threads with evaluation suites that lack challenging-yet-realistic testing setups and fail to employ careful experimental design. Consequently, the community does not know which techniques perform best or even if they outperform simple baselines. We formulate desiderata for an ideal few-shot NLP benchmark and present FLEX, the first benchmark, public leaderboard, and framework that provides unified, comprehensive measurement for few-shot NLP techniques. FLEX incorporates and introduces new best practices for few-shot evaluation, including measurement of four transfer settings, textual labels for zero-shot evaluation, and a principled approach to benchmark design that optimizes statistical accuracy while keeping evaluation costs accessible to researchers without large compute resources. In addition, we present UniFew, a simple yet strong prompt-based model for few-shot learning which unifies the pretraining and finetuning prompt formats, eschewing complex machinery of recent prompt-based approaches in adapting downstream task formats to language model pretraining objectives. We demonstrate that despite simplicity UniFew achieves results competitive with both popular meta-learning and prompt-based approaches.

Incorporating Visual Layout Structures for Scientific Text Classification

Classifying the core textual components of a scientific paper-title, author, body text, etc.-is a critical first step in automated scientific document understanding. Previous work has shown how using elementary layout information, i.e., each token's 2D position on the page, leads to more accurate classification. We introduce new methods for incorporating VIsual LAyout (VILA) structures, e.g., the grouping of page texts into text lines or text blocks, into language models to further improve performance. We show that the I-VILA approach, which simply adds special tokens denoting the boundaries of layout structures into model inputs, can lead to 1.9% Macro F1 improvements for token classification. Moreover, we design a hierarchical model, H-VILA, that encodes the text based on layout structures and record an up-to 47% inference time reduction with less than 1.5% Macro F1 loss for the text classification models. Experiments are conducted on a newly curated evaluation suite, S2-VLUE, with a novel metric measuring classification uniformity within visual groups and a new dataset of gold annotations covering papers from 19 scientific disciplines. Pre-trained weights, benchmark datasets, and source code will be available at https://github.com/allenai/VILA.

A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers

Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.

Searching for Scientific Evidence in a Pandemic: An Overview of TREC-COVID

We present an overview of the TREC-COVID Challenge, an information retrieval (IR) shared task to evaluate search on scientific literature related to COVID-19. The goals of TREC-COVID include the construction of a pandemic search test collection and the evaluation of IR methods for COVID-19. The challenge was conducted over five rounds from April to July, 2020, with participation from 92 unique teams and 556 individual submissions. A total of 50 topics (sets of related queries) were used in the evaluation, starting at 30 topics for Round 1 and adding 5 new topics per round to target emerging topics at that state of the still-emerging pandemic. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the structure and results of TREC-COVID. Specifically, the paper provides details on the background, task structure, topic structure, corpus, participation, pooling, assessment, judgments, results, top-performing systems, lessons learned, and benchmark datasets.