IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedback

Research ideation involves broad exploring and deep refining ideas. Both require deep engagement with literature. Existing tools focus primarily on idea broad generation, yet offer little support for iterative specification, refinement, and evaluation needed to further develop initial ideas. To bridge this gap, we introduce IdeaSynth, a research idea development system that uses LLMs to provide literature-grounded feedback for articulating research problems, solutions, evaluations, and contributions. IdeaSynth represents these idea facets as nodes on a canvas, and allow researchers to iteratively refine them by creating and exploring variations and composing them. Our lab study (N=20) showed that participants, while using IdeaSynth, explored more alternative ideas and expanded initial ideas with more details compared to a strong LLM-based baseline. Our deployment study (N=7) demonstrated that participants effectively used IdeaSynth for real-world research projects at various ideation stages from developing initial ideas to revising framings of mature manuscripts, highlighting the possibilities to adopt IdeaSynth in researcher's workflows.

Scideator: Human-LLM Scientific Idea Generation Grounded in Research-Paper Facet Recombination

The scientific ideation process often involves blending salient aspects of existing papers to create new ideas. To see if large language models (LLMs) can assist this process, we contribute Scideator, a novel mixed-initiative tool for scientific ideation. Starting from a user-provided set of papers, Scideator extracts key facets (purposes, mechanisms, and evaluations) from these and relevant papers, allowing users to explore the idea space by interactively recombining facets to synthesize inventive ideas. Scideator also helps users to gauge idea novelty by searching the literature for potential overlaps and showing automated novelty assessments and explanations. To support these tasks, Scideator introduces four LLM-powered retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) modules: Analogous Paper Facet Finder, Faceted Idea Generator, Idea Novelty Checker, and Idea Novelty Iterator. In a within-subjects user study, 19 computer-science researchers identified significantly more interesting ideas using Scideator compared to a strong baseline combining a scientific search engine with LLM interaction.

SciRIFF: A Resource to Enhance Language Model Instruction-Following over Scientific Literature

We present SciRIFF (Scientific Resource for Instruction-Following and Finetuning), a dataset of 137K instruction-following demonstrations for 54 tasks covering five essential scientific literature understanding capabilities: information extraction, summarization, question answering, claim verification, and classification. SciRIFF demonstrations are notable for their long input contexts, detailed task specifications, and complex structured outputs. While instruction-following resources are available in specific domains such as clinical medicine and chemistry, SciRIFF is the first dataset focused on extracting and synthesizing information from research literature across a wide range of scientific fields. To demonstrate the utility of SciRIFF, we develop a sample-efficient strategy to adapt a general instruction-following model for science by performing additional finetuning on a mix of general-domain and SciRIFF demonstrations. In evaluations on nine held-out scientific tasks, our model -- called SciTulu -- improves over a strong LLM baseline by 28.1% and 6.5% at the 7B and 70B scales respectively, while maintaining general instruction-following performance within 2% of the baseline. We are optimistic that SciRIFF will facilitate the development and evaluation of LLMs to help researchers navigate the ever-growing body of scientific literature. We release our dataset, model checkpoints, and data processing and evaluation code to enable further research.

What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

On-the-fly Definition Augmentation of LLMs for Biomedical NER

Despite their general capabilities, LLMs still struggle on biomedical NER tasks, which are difficult due to the presence of specialized terminology and lack of training data. In this work we set out to improve LLM performance on biomedical NER in limited data settings via a new knowledge augmentation approach which incorporates definitions of relevant concepts on-the-fly. During this process, to provide a test bed for knowledge augmentation, we perform a comprehensive exploration of prompting strategies. Our experiments show that definition augmentation is useful for both open source and closed LLMs. For example, it leads to a relative improvement of 15\% (on average) in GPT-4 performance (F1) across all (six) of our test datasets. We conduct extensive ablations and analyses to demonstrate that our performance improvements stem from adding relevant definitional knowledge. We find that careful prompting strategies also improve LLM performance, allowing them to outperform fine-tuned language models in few-shot settings. To facilitate future research in this direction, we release our code at https://github.com/allenai/beacon.

MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers

We study the ability of LLMs to generate feedback for scientific papers and develop MARG, a feedback generation approach using multiple LLM instances that engage in internal discussion. By distributing paper text across agents, MARG can consume the full text of papers beyond the input length limitations of the base LLM, and by specializing agents and incorporating sub-tasks tailored to different comment types (experiments, clarity, impact) it improves the helpfulness and specificity of feedback. In a user study, baseline methods using GPT-4 were rated as producing generic or very generic comments more than half the time, and only 1.7 comments per paper were rated as good overall in the best baseline. Our system substantially improves the ability of GPT-4 to generate specific and helpful feedback, reducing the rate of generic comments from 60% to 29% and generating 3.7 good comments per paper (a 2.2x improvement).

CHAMP: Efficient Annotation and Consolidation of Cluster Hierarchies

Various NLP tasks require a complex hierarchical structure over nodes, where each node is a cluster of items. Examples include generating entailment graphs, hierarchical cross-document coreference resolution, annotating event and subevent relations, etc. To enable efficient annotation of such hierarchical structures, we release CHAMP, an open source tool allowing to incrementally construct both clusters and hierarchy simultaneously over any type of texts. This incremental approach significantly reduces annotation time compared to the common pairwise annotation approach and also guarantees maintaining transitivity at the cluster and hierarchy levels. Furthermore, CHAMP includes a consolidation mode, where an adjudicator can easily compare multiple cluster hierarchy annotations and resolve disagreements.

CARE: Extracting Experimental Findings From Clinical Literature

Extracting fine-grained experimental findings from literature can provide massive utility for scientific applications. Prior work has focused on developing annotation schemas and datasets for limited aspects of this problem, leading to simpler information extraction datasets which do not capture the real-world complexity and nuance required for this task. Focusing on biomedicine, this work presents CARE (Clinical Aggregation-oriented Result Extraction) -- a new IE dataset for the task of extracting clinical findings. We develop a new annotation schema capturing fine-grained findings as n-ary relations between entities and attributes, which includes phenomena challenging for current IE systems such as discontinuous entity spans, nested relations, and variable arity n-ary relations. Using this schema, we collect extensive annotations for 700 abstracts from two sources: clinical trials and case reports. We also benchmark the performance of various state-of-the-art IE systems on our dataset, including extractive models and generative LLMs in fully supervised and limited data settings. Our results demonstrate the difficulty of our dataset -- even SOTA models such as GPT4 struggle, particularly on relation extraction. We release our annotation schema and CARE to encourage further research on extracting and aggregating scientific findings from literature.

ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews

Revising scientific papers based on peer feedback is a challenging task that requires not only deep scientific knowledge and reasoning, but also the ability to recognize the implicit requests in high-level feedback and to choose the best of many possible ways to update the manuscript in response. We introduce this task for large language models and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits, to enable training and evaluating models. We study two versions of the task: comment-edit alignment and edit generation, and evaluate several baselines, including GPT-4. We find that models struggle even to identify the edits that correspond to a comment, especially in cases where the comment is phrased in an indirect way or where the edit addresses the spirit of a comment but not the precise request. When tasked with generating edits, GPT-4 often succeeds in addressing comments on a surface level, but it rigidly follows the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and includes fewer technical details than human-written edits. We hope that our formalization, dataset, and analysis will form a foundation for future work in this area.

Learning to Generate Novel Scientific Directions with Contextualized Literature-based Discovery

Literature-Based Discovery (LBD) aims to discover new scientific knowledge by mining papers and generating hypotheses. Standard LBD is limited to predicting pairwise relations between discrete concepts (e.g., drug-disease links). LBD also ignores critical contexts like experimental settings (e.g., a specific patient population where a drug is evaluated) and background knowledge and motivations that human scientists consider (e.g., to find a drug candidate without specific side effects). We address these limitations with a novel formulation of contextualized-LBD (C-LBD): generating scientific hypotheses in natural language, while grounding them in a context that controls the hypothesis search space. We present a new modeling framework using retrieval of ``inspirations'' from a heterogeneous network of citations and knowledge graph relations, and create a new dataset derived from papers. In automated and human evaluations, our models improve over baselines, including powerful large language models (LLMs), but also reveal challenges on the road to building machines that generate new scientific knowledge.