Understanding How Paper Writers Use AI-Generated Captions in Figure Caption Writing

Figures and their captions play a key role in scientific publications. However, despite their importance, many captions in published papers are poorly crafted, largely due to a lack of attention by paper authors. While prior AI research has explored caption generation, it has mainly focused on reader-centered use cases, where users evaluate generated captions rather than actively integrating them into their writing. This paper addresses this gap by investigating how paper authors incorporate AI-generated captions into their writing process through a user study involving 18 participants. Each participant rewrote captions for two figures from their own recently published work, using captions generated by state-of-the-art AI models as a resource. By analyzing video recordings of the writing process through interaction analysis, we observed that participants often began by copying and refining AI-generated captions. Paper writers favored longer, detail-rich captions that integrated textual and visual elements but found current AI models less effective for complex figures. These findings highlight the nuanced and diverse nature of figure caption composition, revealing design opportunities for AI systems to better support the challenges of academic writing.

Multi-LLM Collaborative Caption Generation in Scientific Documents

Scientific figure captioning is a complex task that requires generating contextually appropriate descriptions of visual content. However, existing methods often fall short by utilizing incomplete information, treating the task solely as either an image-to-text or text summarization problem. This limitation hinders the generation of high-quality captions that fully capture the necessary details. Moreover, existing data sourced from arXiv papers contain low-quality captions, posing significant challenges for training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we introduce a framework called Multi-LLM Collaborative Figure Caption Generation (MLBCAP) to address these challenges by leveraging specialized LLMs for distinct sub-tasks. Our approach unfolds in three key modules: (Quality Assessment) We utilize multimodal LLMs to assess the quality of training data, enabling the filtration of low-quality captions. (Diverse Caption Generation) We then employ a strategy of fine-tuning/prompting multiple LLMs on the captioning task to generate candidate captions. (Judgment) Lastly, we prompt a prominent LLM to select the highest quality caption from the candidates, followed by refining any remaining inaccuracies. Human evaluations demonstrate that informative captions produced by our approach rank better than human-written captions, highlighting its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/teamreboott/MLBCAP

CoCoLoFa: A Dataset of News Comments with Common Logical Fallacies Written by LLM-Assisted Crowds

Detecting logical fallacies in texts can help users spot argument flaws, but automating this detection is not easy. Manually annotating fallacies in large-scale, real-world text data to create datasets for developing and validating detection models is costly. This paper introduces CoCoLoFa, the largest known logical fallacy dataset, containing 7,706 comments for 648 news articles, with each comment labeled for fallacy presence and type. We recruited 143 crowd workers to write comments embodying specific fallacy types (e.g., slippery slope) in response to news articles. Recognizing the complexity of this writing task, we built an LLM-powered assistant into the workers' interface to aid in drafting and refining their comments. Experts rated the writing quality and labeling validity of CoCoLoFa as high and reliable. BERT-based models fine-tuned using CoCoLoFa achieved the highest fallacy detection (F1=0.86) and classification (F1=0.87) performance on its test set, outperforming the state-of-the-art LLMs. Our work shows that combining crowdsourcing and LLMs enables us to more effectively construct datasets for complex linguistic phenomena that crowd workers find challenging to produce on their own.

What Color Scheme is More Effective in Assisting Readers to Locate Information in a Color-Coded Article?

Color coding, a technique assigning specific colors to cluster information types, has proven advantages in aiding human cognitive activities, especially reading and comprehension. The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has streamlined document coding, enabling simple automatic text labeling with various schemes. This has the potential to make color-coding more accessible and benefit more users. However, the impact of color choice on information seeking is understudied. We conducted a user study assessing various color schemes' effectiveness in LLM-coded text documents, standardizing contrast ratios to approximately 5.55:1 across schemes. Participants performed timed information-seeking tasks in color-coded scholarly abstracts. Results showed non-analogous and yellow-inclusive color schemes improved performance, with the latter also being more preferred by participants. These findings can inform better color scheme choices for text annotation. As LLMs advance document coding, we advocate for more research focusing on the "color" aspect of color-coding techniques.

Generating Educational Materials with Different Levels of Readability using LLMs

This study introduces the leveled-text generation task, aiming to rewrite educational materials to specific readability levels while preserving meaning. We assess the capability of GPT-3.5, LLaMA-2 70B, and Mixtral 8x7B, to generate content at various readability levels through zero-shot and few-shot prompting. Evaluating 100 processed educational materials reveals that few-shot prompting significantly improves performance in readability manipulation and information preservation. LLaMA-2 70B performs better in achieving the desired difficulty range, while GPT-3.5 maintains original meaning. However, manual inspection highlights concerns such as misinformation introduction and inconsistent edit distribution. These findings emphasize the need for further research to ensure the quality of generated educational content.

If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-4

Recent studies indicated GPT-4 outperforms online crowd workers in data labeling accuracy, notably workers from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). However, these studies were criticized for deviating from standard crowdsourcing practices and emphasizing individual workers' performances over the whole data-annotation process. This paper compared GPT-4 and an ethical and well-executed MTurk pipeline, with 415 workers labeling 3,177 sentence segments from 200 scholarly articles using the CODA-19 scheme. Two worker interfaces yielded 127,080 labels, which were then used to infer the final labels through eight label-aggregation algorithms. Our evaluation showed that despite best practices, MTurk pipeline's highest accuracy was 81.5%, whereas GPT-4 achieved 83.6%. Interestingly, when combining GPT-4's labels with crowd labels collected via an advanced worker interface for aggregation, 2 out of the 8 algorithms achieved an even higher accuracy (87.5%, 87.0%). Further analysis suggested that, when the crowd's and GPT-4's labeling strengths are complementary, aggregating them could increase labeling accuracy.

Good Data, Large Data, or No Data? Comparing Three Approaches in Developing Research Aspect Classifiers for Biomedical Papers

The rapid growth of scientific publications, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizes the need for tools to help researchers efficiently comprehend the latest advancements. One essential part of understanding scientific literature is research aspect classification, which categorizes sentences in abstracts to Background, Purpose, Method, and Finding. In this study, we investigate the impact of different datasets on model performance for the crowd-annotated CODA-19 research aspect classification task. Specifically, we explore the potential benefits of using the large, automatically curated PubMed 200K RCT dataset and evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), such as LLaMA, GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Our results indicate that using the PubMed 200K RCT dataset does not improve performance for the CODA-19 task. We also observe that while GPT-4 performs well, it does not outperform the SciBERT model fine-tuned on the CODA-19 dataset, emphasizing the importance of a dedicated and task-aligned datasets dataset for the target task. Our code is available at https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/CODA-19-exp.

ConvXAI: Delivering Heterogeneous AI Explanations via Conversations to Support Human-AI Scientific Writing

While various AI explanation (XAI) methods have been proposed to interpret AI systems, whether the state-of-the-art XAI methods are practically useful for humans remains inconsistent findings. To improve the usefulness of XAI methods, a line of studies identifies the gaps between the diverse and dynamic real-world user needs with the status quo of XAI methods. Although prior studies envision mitigating these gaps by integrating multiple XAI methods into the universal XAI interfaces (e.g., conversational or GUI-based XAI systems), there is a lack of work investigating how these systems should be designed to meet practical user needs. In this study, we present ConvXAI, a conversational XAI system that incorporates multiple XAI types, and empowers users to request a variety of XAI questions via a universal XAI dialogue interface. Particularly, we innovatively embed practical user needs (i.e., four principles grounding on the formative study) into ConvXAI design to improve practical usefulness. Further, we design the domain-specific language (DSL) to implement the essential conversational XAI modules and release the core conversational universal XAI API for generalization. The findings from two within-subjects studies with 21 users show that ConvXAI is more useful for humans in perceiving the understanding and writing improvement, and improving the writing process in terms of productivity and sentence quality. Finally, this work contributes insight into the design space of useful XAI, reveals humans' XAI usage patterns with empirical evidence in practice, and identifies opportunities for future useful XAI work.

Understanding Individual and Team-based Human Factors in Detecting Deepfake Texts

In recent years, Natural Language Generation (NLG) techniques in AI (e.g., T5, GPT-3, ChatGPT) have shown a massive improvement and are now capable of generating human-like long coherent texts at scale, yielding so-called deepfake texts. This advancement, despite their benefits, can also cause security and privacy issues (e.g., plagiarism, identity obfuscation, disinformation attack). As such, it has become critically important to develop effective, practical, and scalable solutions to differentiate deepfake texts from human-written texts. Toward this challenge, in this work, we investigate how factors such as skill levels and collaborations impact how humans identify deepfake texts, studying three research questions: (1) do collaborative teams detect deepfake texts better than individuals? (2) do expert humans detect deepfake texts better than non-expert humans? (3) what are the factors that maximize the detection performance of humans? We implement these questions on two platforms: (1) non-expert humans or asynchronous teams on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and (2) expert humans or synchronous teams on the Upwork. By analyzing the detection performance and the factors that affected performance, some of our key findings are: (1) expert humans detect deepfake texts significantly better than non-expert humans, (2) synchronous teams on the Upwork detect deepfake texts significantly better than individuals, while asynchronous teams on the AMT detect deepfake texts weakly better than individuals, and (3) among various error categories, examining coherence and consistency in texts is useful in detecting deepfake texts. In conclusion, our work could inform the design of future tools/framework to improve collaborative human detection of deepfake texts.

What Types of Questions Require Conversation to Answer? A Case Study of AskReddit Questions

The proliferation of automated conversational systems such as chatbots, spoken-dialogue systems, and smart speakers, has significantly impacted modern digital life. However, these systems are primarily designed to provide answers to well-defined questions rather than to support users in exploring complex, ill-defined questions. In this paper, we aim to push the boundaries of conversational systems by examining the types of nebulous, open-ended questions that can best be answered through conversation. We first sampled 500 questions from one million open-ended requests posted on AskReddit, and then recruited online crowd workers to answer eight inquiries about these questions. We also performed open coding to categorize the questions into 27 different domains. We found that the issues people believe require conversation to resolve satisfactorily are highly social and personal. Our work provides insights into how future research could be geared to align with users' needs.