Yi Bu

Chao Min, Yi Zhao, Yi Bu et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), a cornerstone of 21st-century technology, has seen remarkable growth in China. In this paper, we examine China's AI development process, demonstrating that it is characterized by rapid learning and differentiation, surpassing the export-oriented growth propelled by Foreign Direct Investment seen in earlier Asian industrializers. Our data indicates that China currently leads the USA in the volume of AI-related research papers. However, when we delve into the quality of these papers based on specific metrics, the USA retains a slight edge. Nevertheless, the pace and scale of China's AI development remain noteworthy. We attribute China's accelerated AI progress to several factors, including global trends favoring open access to algorithms and research papers, contributions from China's broad diaspora and returnees, and relatively lax data protection policies. In the vein of our research, we have developed a novel measure for gauging China's imitation of US research. Our analysis shows that by 2018, the time lag between China and the USA in addressing AI research topics had evaporated. This finding suggests that China has effectively bridged a significant knowledge gap and could potentially be setting out on an independent research trajectory. While this study compares China and the USA exclusively, it's important to note that research collaborations between these two nations have resulted in more highly cited work than those produced by either country independently. This underscores the power of international cooperation in driving scientific progress in AI.

Chenglei Qin, Chengzhi Zhang, Yi Bu

[Purpose] To better understand the online reviews and help potential consumers, businessmen, and product manufacturers effectively obtain users' evaluation on product aspects, this paper explores the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects from the temporal perspective of online reviews. [Design/methodology/approach] Temporal characteristics of online reviews (purchase time, review time, and time intervals between purchase time and review time), similar attributes clustering, and attribute-level sentiment computing technologies are employed based on more than 340k smartphone reviews of three products from JD.COM (a famous online shopping platform in China) to explore the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects in this article. [Findings] The empirical results show that a power-law distribution can fit user attention to product aspects, and the reviews posted in short time intervals contain more product aspects. Besides, the results show that the values of user sentiment of product aspects are significantly higher/lower in short time intervals which contribute to judging the advantages and weaknesses of a product. [Research limitations] The paper can't acquire online reviews for more products with temporal characteristics to verify the findings because of the restriction on reviews crawling by the shopping platforms. [Originality/value] This work reveals the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects, which is of great significance in assisting decision-making, optimizing review presentation, and improving the shopping experience.

Juhyeon Lee, Wonduk Seo, Hyunjin An et al.

Automatic prompt optimization has recently emerged as a strategy for improving the quality of prompts used in Large Language Models (LLMs), with the goal of generating more accurate and useful responses. However, most prior work focuses on direct prompt refinement or model fine-tuning, overlooking the potential of leveraging LLMs' inherent reasoning capability to learn from contrasting examples. In this paper, we present Contrastive Reasoning Prompt Optimization (CRPO), a novel framework that formulates prompt optimization as a retrieval-augmented reasoning process. Our approach retrieves top k reference prompt-response pairs from the HelpSteer2 dataset, an open source collection where each response is annotated for helpfulness, correctness, coherence, complexity, and verbosity, and constructs two complementary optimization paradigms: (1) tiered contrastive reasoning, where the LLM compares high-, medium-, and low-quality exemplars (both prompts and responses) to refine its own generation through reflective reasoning, and (2) multi-metric contrastive reasoning, where the LLM analyzes the best exemplars along each evaluation dimension and integrates their strengths into an optimized prompt. By explicitly contrasting high and low quality exemplars, CRPO enables the model to deduce why certain prompts succeed while others fail, thereby achieving more robust and interpretable optimization. Experimental results on the HelpSteer2 benchmark demonstrate that CRPO significantly outperforms baselines. Our findings highlight the promise of contrastive, retrieval-augmented reasoning for advancing automatic prompt optimization.

Xiangjie Kong, Jun Zhang, Da Zhang et al.

This paper elaborates how to identify and evaluate causal factors to improve scientific impact. Currently, analyzing scientific impact can be beneficial to various academic activities including funding application, mentor recommendation, and discovering potential cooperators etc. It is universally acknowledged that high-impact scholars often have more opportunities to receive awards as an encouragement for their hard working. Therefore, scholars spend great efforts in making scientific achievements and improving scientific impact during their academic life. However, what are the determinate factors that control scholars' academic success? The answer to this question can help scholars conduct their research more efficiently. Under this consideration, our paper presents and analyzes the causal factors that are crucial for scholars' academic success. We first propose five major factors including article-centered factors, author-centered factors, venue-centered factors, institution-centered factors, and temporal factors. Then, we apply recent advanced machine learning algorithms and jackknife method to assess the importance of each causal factor. Our empirical results show that author-centered and article-centered factors have the highest relevancy to scholars' future success in the computer science area. Additionally, we discover an interesting phenomenon that the h-index of scholars within the same institution or university are actually very close to each other.

Huimin Xu, Yi Bu, Meijun Liu et al.

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all co-authors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of co-authors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Chongyan Chen, Islam Akef Ebeid, Yi Bu et al.

The emergence of the novel COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global healthcare and the economy over the past few months. The virus's rapid widespread has led to a proliferation in biomedical research addressing the pandemic and its related topics. One of the essential Knowledge Discovery tools that could help the biomedical research community understand and eventually find a cure for COVID-19 are Knowledge Graphs. The CORD-19 dataset is a collection of publicly available full-text research articles that have been recently published on COVID-19 and coronavirus topics. Here, we use several Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Knowledge Graph construction and mining techniques to formalize and extract insights from the PubMed dataset and the CORD-19 dataset to identify COVID-19 related experts and bio-entities. Besides, we suggest possible techniques to predict related diseases, drug candidates, gene, gene mutations, and related compounds as part of a systematic effort to apply Knowledge Discovery methods to help biomedical researchers tackle the pandemic.

Chao Lu, Yi Bu, Xianlei Dong et al.

The number of publications and the number of citations received have become the most common indicators of scholarly success. In this context, scientific writing increasingly plays an important role in scholars' scientific careers. To understand the relationship between scientific writing and scientific impact, this paper selected 12 variables of linguistic complexity as a proxy for depicting scientific writing. We then analyzed these features from 36,400 full-text Biology articles and 1,797 full-text Psychology articles. These features were compared to the scientific impact of articles, grouped into high, medium, and low categories. The results suggested no practical significant relationship between linguistic complexity and citation strata in either discipline. This suggests that textual complexity plays little role in scientific impact in our data sets.

Chao Lu, Yi Bu, Jie Wang et al.

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. In order to uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (1) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (2) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.