Raymond Fok

Marissa Radensky, Simra Shahid, Raymond Fok et al. · allen-ai, uw

The scientific ideation process often involves blending facets of existing papers to create new ideas. We contribute Scideator, the first human-LLM system for facet-based scientific ideation. Starting from user-provided papers, Scideator extracts key facets -- purposes, mechanisms, and evaluations -- from these and related papers, allowing users to interactively recombine facets to synthesize ideas. Scideator is driven by three design choices: (1) human-in-the-loop facet recombination, in which users select facets from retrieved papers and the system generates ideas by finding analogies across them via the Faceted Idea Generator module; (2) distance-controlled retrieval via the Analogous Paper Facet Finder module, which surfaces papers ranging from the same topic to entirely different areas to provide a spectrum of directions; and (3) facet-based novelty verification via the Idea Novelty Checker module, a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline that helps users to evaluate idea originality using facets. In a user study with computer science researchers, Scideator provided significantly more creativity support than a baseline using the same backbone LLM without our facet-based modules, particularly in idea exploration and expressiveness. Ablations further show that the facets benefit the novelty checker: facet-based retrieve-then-rerank surfaces more relevant papers than standard retrieval and re-ranking, and a facet-grounded novelty classifier outperforms classifiers that reason over unstructured ideas and papers.

Kyle Lo, Joseph Chee Chang, Andrew Head et al. · allen-ai, cmu

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.

Marissa Radensky, Simra Shahid, Raymond Fok et al. · allen-ai, uw

The scientific ideation process often involves blending salient aspects of existing papers to create new ideas - a framework known as facet-based ideation. We contribute Scideator, the first human-LLM system for facet-based scientific ideation. Starting from a user-provided set of scientific papers, Scideator extracts key facets -- purposes, mechanisms, and evaluations -- from these and related papers, allowing users to explore the idea space by interactively recombining facets to synthesize inventive ideas. Scideator is driven by three design choices: (1) human-in-the-loop facet recombination, in which users select facets from retrieved papers and the system generates ideas by finding analogies across them via the Faceted Idea Generator module; (2) distance-controlled retrieval via the Analogous Paper Facet Finder module, which surfaces papers from the same topic to entirely different subareas to provide a spectrum of creative directions; and (3) facet-based novelty verification via the Idea Novelty Checker module, a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline that evaluates idea originality using facets. In a user study with computer science researchers, Scideator provided significantly more creativity support than a baseline using the same backbone LLM without our facet-based modules, particularly in idea exploration and expressiveness. Participants' favorite ideas more often included facets selected by themselves rather than the LLM, and participants used fewer free-text instructions with Scideator, indicating a preference for facet-level steering over prompting. Finally, re-ranking papers by facet matching rather than general relevance improved novelty classification accuracy from 13.79% to 89.66%.

Benjamin Newman, Luca Soldaini, Raymond Fok et al.

Many real-world applications (e.g., note taking, search) require extracting a sentence or paragraph from a document and showing that snippet to a human outside of the source document. Yet, users may find snippets difficult to understand as they lack context from the original document. In this work, we use language models to rewrite snippets from scientific documents to be read on their own. First, we define the requirements and challenges for this user-facing decontextualization task, such as clarifying where edits occur and handling references to other documents. Second, we propose a framework that decomposes the task into three stages: question generation, question answering, and rewriting. Using this framework, we collect gold decontextualizations from experienced scientific article readers. We then conduct a range of experiments across state-of-the-art commercial and open-source language models to identify how to best provide missing-but-relevant information to models for our task. Finally, we develop QaDecontext, a simple prompting strategy inspired by our framework that improves over end-to-end prompting. We conclude with analysis that finds, while rewriting is easy, question generation and answering remain challenging for today's models.

Benjamin Newman, Yoonjoo Lee, Aakanksha Naik et al. · allen-ai, uw

When conducting literature reviews, scientists often create literature review tables - tables whose rows are publications and whose columns constitute a schema, a set of aspects used to compare and contrast the papers. Can we automatically generate these tables using language models (LMs)? In this work, we introduce a framework that leverages LMs to perform this task by decomposing it into separate schema and value generation steps. To enable experimentation, we address two main challenges: First, we overcome a lack of high-quality datasets to benchmark table generation by curating and releasing arxivDIGESTables, a new dataset of 2,228 literature review tables extracted from ArXiv papers that synthesize a total of 7,542 research papers. Second, to support scalable evaluation of model generations against human-authored reference tables, we develop DecontextEval, an automatic evaluation method that aligns elements of tables with the same underlying aspects despite differing surface forms. Given these tools, we evaluate LMs' abilities to reconstruct reference tables, finding this task benefits from additional context to ground the generation (e.g. table captions, in-text references). Finally, through a human evaluation study we find that even when LMs fail to fully reconstruct a reference table, their generated novel aspects can still be useful.

Simra Shahid, Marissa Radensky, Raymond Fok et al. · allen-ai, uw

Automated scientific idea generation systems have made remarkable progress, yet the automatic evaluation of idea novelty remains a critical and underexplored challenge. Manual evaluation of novelty through literature review is labor-intensive, prone to error due to subjectivity, and impractical at scale. To address these issues, we propose the Idea Novelty Checker, an LLM-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework that leverages a two-stage retrieve-then-rerank approach. The Idea Novelty Checker first collects a broad set of relevant papers using keyword and snippet-based retrieval, then refines this collection through embedding-based filtering followed by facet-based LLM re-ranking. It incorporates expert-labeled examples to guide the system in comparing papers for novelty evaluation and in generating literature-grounded reasoning. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that our novelty checker achieves approximately 13% higher agreement than existing approaches. Ablation studies further showcases the importance of the facet-based re-ranker in identifying the most relevant literature for novelty evaluation.

Liwei Jiang, Yuanjun Chai, Margaret Li et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content, raising concerns about the long-term homogenization of human thought through repeated exposure to similar outputs. Yet scalable methods for evaluating LM output diversity remain limited, especially beyond narrow tasks such as random number or name generation, or beyond repeated sampling from a single model. We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries that admit a wide range of plausible answers with no single ground truth. We introduce the first comprehensive taxonomy for characterizing the full spectrum of open-ended prompts posed to LMs, comprising 6 top-level categories (e.g., brainstorm & ideation) that further breaks down to 17 subcategories. Using Infinity-Chat, we present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect in open-ended generation of LMs, characterized by (1) intra-model repetition, where a single model consistently generates similar responses, and more so (2) inter-model homogeneity, where different models produce strikingly similar outputs. Infinity-Chat also includes 31,250 human annotations, across absolute ratings and pairwise preferences, with 25 independent human annotations per example. This enables studying collective and individual-specific human preferences in response to open-ended queries. Our findings show that LMs, reward models, and LM judges are less well calibrated to human ratings on model generations that elicit differing idiosyncratic annotator preferences, despite maintaining comparable overall quality. Overall, INFINITY-CHAT presents the first large-scale resource for systematically studying real-world open-ended queries to LMs, revealing critical insights to guide future research for mitigating long-term AI safety risks posed by the Artificial Hivemind.

Raymond Fok, Daniel S. Weld

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang et al.

Despite the central importance of research papers to scientific progress, they can be difficult to read. Comprehension is often stymied when the information needed to understand a passage resides somewhere else: in another section, or in another paper. In this work, we envision how interfaces can bring definitions of technical terms and symbols to readers when and where they need them most. We introduce ScholarPhi, an augmented reading interface with four novel features: (1) tooltips that surface position-sensitive definitions from elsewhere in a paper, (2) a filter over the paper that "declutters" it to reveal how the term or symbol is used across the paper, (3) automatic equation diagrams that expose multiple definitions in parallel, and (4) an automatically generated glossary of important terms and symbols. A usability study showed that the tool helps researchers of all experience levels read papers. Furthermore, researchers were eager to have ScholarPhi's definitions available to support their everyday reading.

Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou et al.

Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some conditions). While we observed complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by explanations. Rather, explanations increased the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness. Our result poses new challenges for human-centered AI: Can we develop explanatory approaches that encourage appropriate trust in AI, and therefore help generate (or improve) complementary performance?