From Paper to Card: Transforming Design Implications with Generative AI

Communicating design implications is common within the HCI community when publishing academic papers, yet these papers are rarely read and used by designers. One solution is to use design cards as a form of translational resource that communicates valuable insights from papers in a more digestible and accessible format to assist in design processes. However, creating design cards can be time-consuming, and authors may lack the resources/know-how to produce cards. Through an iterative design process, we built a system that helps create design cards from academic papers using an LLM and text-to-image model. Our evaluation with designers (N=21) and authors of selected papers (N=12) revealed that designers perceived the design implications from our design cards as more inspiring and generative, compared to reading original paper texts, and the authors viewed our system as an effective way of communicating their design implications. We also propose future enhancements for AI-generated design cards.

Designing Guiding Principles for NLP for Healthcare: A Case Study of Maternal Health

Objective: An ethical framework for the use of large language models (LLMs) is urgently needed to shape how natural language processing (NLP) tools are used for healthcare applications. Drawing directly from the voices of those most affected, we propose a set of guiding principles for the use of NLP in healthcare, with examples based on applications in maternal health. Materials and Methods: We led an interactive session centered on an LLM-based chatbot demonstration during a full-day workshop with 39 participants, and additionally surveyed 30 healthcare workers and 30 birthing people about their values, needs, and perceptions of AI and LLMs. We conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses of the interactive discussions to consolidate our findings into a set of guiding principles. Results: Using the case study of maternal health, we propose nine principles for ethical use of LLMs, grouped into three categories: (i) contextual significance, (ii) measurements, and (iii) who/what is valued. We describe rationales underlying these principles and provide practical advice. Discussion: Healthcare faces existing challenges including the balance of power in clinician-patient relationships, systemic health disparities, historical injustices, and economic constraints. Our principles serve as a framework for surfacing key considerations when deploying LLMs in medicine, as well as providing a methodological pattern for other researchers to follow. Conclusion: This set of principles can serve as a resource to practitioners working on maternal health and other healthcare fields to emphasize the importance of technical nuance, historical context, and inclusive design when developing LLMs for use in clinical settings.

Personalized Jargon Identification for Enhanced Interdisciplinary Communication

Scientific jargon can impede researchers when they read materials from other domains. Current methods of jargon identification mainly use corpus-level familiarity indicators (e.g., Simple Wikipedia represents plain language). However, researchers' familiarity of a term can vary greatly based on their own background. We collect a dataset of over 10K term familiarity annotations from 11 computer science researchers for terms drawn from 100 paper abstracts. Analysis of this data reveals that jargon familiarity and information needs vary widely across annotators, even within the same sub-domain (e.g., NLP). We investigate features representing individual, sub-domain, and domain knowledge to predict individual jargon familiarity. We compare supervised and prompt-based approaches, finding that prompt-based methods including personal publications yields the highest accuracy, though zero-shot prompting provides a strong baseline. This research offers insight into features and methods to integrate personal data into scientific jargon identification.

The Rise of Open Science: Tracking the Evolution and Perceived Value of Data and Methods Link-Sharing Practices

In recent years, funding agencies and journals increasingly advocate for open science practices (e.g. data and method sharing) to improve the transparency, access, and reproducibility of science. However, quantifying these practices at scale has proven difficult. In this work, we leverage a large-scale dataset of 1.1M papers from arXiv that are representative of the fields of physics, math, and computer science to analyze the adoption of data and method link-sharing practices over time and their impact on article reception. To identify links to data and methods, we train a neural text classification model to automatically classify URL types based on contextual mentions in papers. We find evidence that the practice of link-sharing to methods and data is spreading as more papers include such URLs over time. Reproducibility efforts may also be spreading because the same links are being increasingly reused across papers (especially in computer science); and these links are increasingly concentrated within fewer web domains (e.g. Github) over time. Lastly, articles that share data and method links receive increased recognition in terms of citation count, with a stronger effect when the shared links are active (rather than defunct). Together, these findings demonstrate the increased spread and perceived value of data and method sharing practices in open science.

APPLS: A Meta-evaluation Testbed for Plain Language Summarization

While there has been significant development of models for Plain Language Summarization (PLS), evaluation remains a challenge. This is in part because PLS involves multiple, interrelated language transformations (e.g., adding background explanations, removing specialized terminology). No metrics are explicitly engineered for PLS, and the suitability of other text generation evaluation metrics remains unclear. To address these concerns, our study presents a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate existing metrics for PLS. Drawing on insights from previous research, we define controlled perturbations for our testbed along four criteria that a metric of plain language should capture: informativeness, simplification, coherence, and faithfulness. Our analysis of metrics using this testbed reveals that current metrics fail to capture simplification, signaling a crucial gap. In response, we introduce POMME, a novel metric designed to assess text simplification in PLS. We demonstrate its correlation with simplification perturbations and validate across a variety of datasets. Our research contributes the first meta-evaluation testbed for PLS and a comprehensive evaluation of existing metrics, offering insights with relevance to other text generation tasks.

Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

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.

The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform

The volume of scientific output is creating an urgent need for automated tools to help scientists keep up with developments in their field. Semantic Scholar (S2) is an open data platform and website aimed at accelerating science by helping scholars discover and understand scientific literature. We combine public and proprietary data sources using state-of-the-art techniques for scholarly PDF content extraction and automatic knowledge graph construction to build the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph, the largest open scientific literature graph to-date, with 200M+ papers, 80M+ authors, 550M+ paper-authorship edges, and 2.4B+ citation edges. The graph includes advanced semantic features such as structurally parsed text, natural language summaries, and vector embeddings. In this paper, we describe the components of the S2 data processing pipeline and the associated APIs offered by the platform. We will update this living document to reflect changes as we add new data offerings and improve existing services.

Exploring the Challenges of Open Domain Multi-Document Summarization

Multi-document summarization (MDS) has traditionally been studied assuming a set of ground-truth topic-related input documents is provided. In practice, the input document set is unlikely to be available a priori and would need to be retrieved based on an information need, a setting we call open-domain MDS. We experiment with current state-of-the-art retrieval and summarization models on several popular MDS datasets extended to the open-domain setting. We find that existing summarizers suffer large reductions in performance when applied as-is to this more realistic task, though training summarizers with retrieved inputs can reduce their sensitivity retrieval errors. To further probe these findings, we conduct perturbation experiments on summarizer inputs to study the impact of different types of document retrieval errors. Based on our results, we provide practical guidelines to help facilitate a shift to open-domain MDS. We release our code and experimental results alongside all data or model artifacts created during our investigation.

SciFact-Open: Towards open-domain scientific claim verification

While research on scientific claim verification has led to the development of powerful systems that appear to approach human performance, these approaches have yet to be tested in a realistic setting against large corpora of scientific literature. Moving to this open-domain evaluation setting, however, poses unique challenges; in particular, it is infeasible to exhaustively annotate all evidence documents. In this work, we present SciFact-Open, a new test collection designed to evaluate the performance of scientific claim verification systems on a corpus of 500K research abstracts. Drawing upon pooling techniques from information retrieval, we collect evidence for scientific claims by pooling and annotating the top predictions of four state-of-the-art scientific claim verification models. We find that systems developed on smaller corpora struggle to generalize to SciFact-Open, exhibiting performance drops of at least 15 F1. In addition, analysis of the evidence in SciFact-Open reveals interesting phenomena likely to appear when claim verification systems are deployed in practice, e.g., cases where the evidence supports only a special case of the claim. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/dwadden/scifact-open.