-
pathfinder: A Semantic Framework for Literature Review and Knowledge Discovery in Astronomy
Authors:
Kartheik G. Iyer,
Mikaeel Yunus,
Charles O'Neill,
Christine Ye,
Alina Hyk,
Kiera McCormick,
Ioana Ciuca,
John F. Wu,
Alberto Accomazzi,
Simone Astarita,
Rishabh Chakrabarty,
Jesse Cranney,
Anjalie Field,
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Michele Ginolfi,
Marc Huertas-Company,
Maja Jablonska,
Sandor Kruk,
Huiling Liu,
Gabriel Marchidan,
Rohit Mistry,
J. P. Naiman,
J. E. G. Peek,
Mugdha Polimera,
Sergio J. Rodriguez
, et al. (5 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The exponential growth of astronomical literature poses significant challenges for researchers navigating and synthesizing general insights or even domain-specific knowledge. We present Pathfinder, a machine learning framework designed to enable literature review and knowledge discovery in astronomy, focusing on semantic searching with natural language instead of syntactic searches with keywords.…
▽ More
The exponential growth of astronomical literature poses significant challenges for researchers navigating and synthesizing general insights or even domain-specific knowledge. We present Pathfinder, a machine learning framework designed to enable literature review and knowledge discovery in astronomy, focusing on semantic searching with natural language instead of syntactic searches with keywords. Utilizing state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) and a corpus of 350,000 peer-reviewed papers from the Astrophysics Data System (ADS), Pathfinder offers an innovative approach to scientific inquiry and literature exploration. Our framework couples advanced retrieval techniques with LLM-based synthesis to search astronomical literature by semantic context as a complement to currently existing methods that use keywords or citation graphs. It addresses complexities of jargon, named entities, and temporal aspects through time-based and citation-based weighting schemes. We demonstrate the tool's versatility through case studies, showcasing its application in various research scenarios. The system's performance is evaluated using custom benchmarks, including single-paper and multi-paper tasks. Beyond literature review, Pathfinder offers unique capabilities for reformatting answers in ways that are accessible to various audiences (e.g. in a different language or as simplified text), visualizing research landscapes, and tracking the impact of observatories and methodologies. This tool represents a significant advancement in applying AI to astronomical research, aiding researchers at all career stages in navigating modern astronomy literature.
△ Less
Submitted 2 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
AstroMLab 1: Who Wins Astronomy Jeopardy!?
Authors:
Yuan-Sen Ting,
Tuan Dung Nguyen,
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Rui Pan,
Hardik Arora,
Zechang Sun,
Tijmen de Haan,
Nesar Ramachandra,
Azton Wells,
Sandeep Madireddy,
Alberto Accomazzi
Abstract:
We present a comprehensive evaluation of proprietary and open-weights large language models using the first astronomy-specific benchmarking dataset. This dataset comprises 4,425 multiple-choice questions curated from the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, covering a broad range of astrophysical topics. Our analysis examines model performance across various astronomical subfields and asse…
▽ More
We present a comprehensive evaluation of proprietary and open-weights large language models using the first astronomy-specific benchmarking dataset. This dataset comprises 4,425 multiple-choice questions curated from the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, covering a broad range of astrophysical topics. Our analysis examines model performance across various astronomical subfields and assesses response calibration, crucial for potential deployment in research environments. Claude-3.5-Sonnet outperforms competitors by up to 4.6 percentage points, achieving 85.0% accuracy. For proprietary models, we observed a universal reduction in cost every 3-to-12 months to achieve similar score in this particular astronomy benchmark. Open-source models have rapidly improved, with LLaMA-3-70b (80.6%) and Qwen-2-72b (77.7%) now competing with some of the best proprietary models. We identify performance variations across topics, with non-English-focused models generally struggling more in exoplanet-related fields, stellar astrophysics, and instrumentation related questions. These challenges likely stem from less abundant training data, limited historical context, and rapid recent developments in these areas. This pattern is observed across both open-weights and proprietary models, with regional dependencies evident, highlighting the impact of training data diversity on model performance in specialized scientific domains. Top-performing models demonstrate well-calibrated confidence, with correlations above 0.9 between confidence and correctness, though they tend to be slightly underconfident. The development for fast, low-cost inference of open-weights models presents new opportunities for affordable deployment in astronomy. The rapid progress observed suggests that LLM-driven research in astronomy may become feasible in the near future.
△ Less
Submitted 15 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer Reviews
Authors:
Sandeep Kumar,
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Asif Ekbal
Abstract:
To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' assessment, identify points of agreement and disagreement and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the es…
▽ More
To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' assessment, identify points of agreement and disagreement and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the escalating number of submissions requiring review, especially in top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences, the editor/chair, among many other works, invests a significant, sometimes stressful effort to mitigate reviewer disagreements. Here in this work, we introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To this end, we introduce ContraSciView, a comprehensive review-pair contradiction dataset on around 8.5k papers (with around 28k review pairs containing nearly 50k review pair comments) from the open review-based ICLR and NeurIPS conferences. We further propose a baseline model that detects contradictory statements from the review pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically. We make our dataset and code public for further investigations.
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
RerrFact: Reduced Evidence Retrieval Representations for Scientific Claim Verification
Authors:
Ashish Rana,
Deepanshu Khanna,
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Muskaan Singh,
Harpreet Singh,
Prashant Singh Rana
Abstract:
Exponential growth in digital information outlets and the race to publish has made scientific misinformation more prevalent than ever. However, the task to fact-verify a given scientific claim is not straightforward even for researchers. Scientific claim verification requires in-depth knowledge and great labor from domain experts to substantiate supporting and refuting evidence from credible scien…
▽ More
Exponential growth in digital information outlets and the race to publish has made scientific misinformation more prevalent than ever. However, the task to fact-verify a given scientific claim is not straightforward even for researchers. Scientific claim verification requires in-depth knowledge and great labor from domain experts to substantiate supporting and refuting evidence from credible scientific sources. The SciFact dataset and corresponding task provide a benchmarking leaderboard to the community to develop automatic scientific claim verification systems via extracting and assimilating relevant evidence rationales from source abstracts. In this work, we propose a modular approach that sequentially carries out binary classification for every prediction subtask as in the SciFact leaderboard. Our simple classifier-based approach uses reduced abstract representations to retrieve relevant abstracts. These are further used to train the relevant rationale-selection model. Finally, we carry out two-step stance predictions that first differentiate non-relevant rationales and then identify supporting or refuting rationales for a given claim. Experimentally, our system RerrFact with no fine-tuning, simple design, and a fraction of model parameters fairs competitively on the leaderboard against large-scale, modular, and joint modeling approaches. We make our codebase available at https://github.com/ashishrana160796/RerrFact.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2022; v1 submitted 5 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Testing the Generalization of Neural Language Models for COVID-19 Misinformation Detection
Authors:
Jan Philip Wahle,
Nischal Ashok,
Terry Ruas,
Norman Meuschke,
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Bela Gipp
Abstract:
A drastic rise in potentially life-threatening misinformation has been a by-product of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computational support to identify false information within the massive body of data on the topic is crucial to prevent harm. Researchers proposed many methods for flagging online misinformation related to COVID-19. However, these methods predominantly target specific content types (e.g., n…
▽ More
A drastic rise in potentially life-threatening misinformation has been a by-product of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computational support to identify false information within the massive body of data on the topic is crucial to prevent harm. Researchers proposed many methods for flagging online misinformation related to COVID-19. However, these methods predominantly target specific content types (e.g., news) or platforms (e.g., Twitter). The methods' capabilities to generalize were largely unclear so far. We evaluate fifteen Transformer-based models on five COVID-19 misinformation datasets that include social media posts, news articles, and scientific papers to fill this gap. We show tokenizers and models tailored to COVID-19 data do not provide a significant advantage over general-purpose ones. Our study provides a realistic assessment of models for detecting COVID-19 misinformation. We expect that evaluating a broad spectrum of datasets and models will benefit future research in developing misinformation detection systems.
△ Less
Submitted 10 November, 2022; v1 submitted 15 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
TAP-DLND 1.0 : A Corpus for Document Level Novelty Detection
Authors:
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Amitra Salam,
Swati Tiwari,
Asif Ekbal,
Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Abstract:
Detecting novelty of an entire document is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) frontier problem that has widespread NLP applications, such as extractive document summarization, tracking development of news events, predicting impact of scholarly articles, etc. Important though the problem is, we are unaware of any benchmark document level data that correctly addresses the evaluation of automatic novelt…
▽ More
Detecting novelty of an entire document is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) frontier problem that has widespread NLP applications, such as extractive document summarization, tracking development of news events, predicting impact of scholarly articles, etc. Important though the problem is, we are unaware of any benchmark document level data that correctly addresses the evaluation of automatic novelty detection techniques in a classification framework. To bridge this gap, we present here a resource for benchmarking the techniques for document level novelty detection. We create the resource via event-specific crawling of news documents across several domains in a periodic manner. We release the annotated corpus with necessary statistics and show its use with a developed system for the problem in concern.
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
-
An AI aid to the editors. Exploring the possibility of an AI assisted article classification system
Authors:
Tirthankar Ghosal,
Rajeev Verma,
Asif Ekbal,
Sriparna Saha,
Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Abstract:
This work is a preliminary exploratory study of how we could progress a step towards an AI assisted article classification sys- tem in academia. The proposed system aims to aid the journal editors in their decisions by pinpointing the potential weaknesses or strengths of a submitted manuscript. From a large collection of articles and corresponding author-editor interactions we explore the possible…
▽ More
This work is a preliminary exploratory study of how we could progress a step towards an AI assisted article classification sys- tem in academia. The proposed system aims to aid the journal editors in their decisions by pinpointing the potential weaknesses or strengths of a submitted manuscript. From a large collection of articles and corresponding author-editor interactions we explore the possible reasons that lead to a paper being not forwarded for review. Our investigation reveals that in most cases either it is be- cause the prospective manuscript is out of scope of the journal or the manuscript does not satisfy the minimum quality requirements to maintain the standard of the journal. We extract several features to quantify the quality of a paper and the degree of in-scope explor- ing keyword search, citation analysis, reputations of authors and affiliations, similarity with respect to accepted papers. With these features we train standard machine learning classifiers to develop a classification system. On a decent set of test data our approach yields promising results across 3 different journals. We believe that our approach is generic and could be adapted to other journals with appropriate adjustments.
△ Less
Submitted 16 February, 2018; v1 submitted 5 February, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
