Nan Zhang

Nan Zhang, Prafulla Kumar Choubey, Alexander Fabbri et al.

Indexing is an important step towards strong performance in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. However, existing methods organize data based on either semantic similarity (similarity) or related information (relatedness), but do not cover both perspectives comprehensively. Our analysis reveals that modeling only one perspective results in insufficient knowledge synthesis, leading to suboptimal performance on complex tasks requiring multihop reasoning. In this paper, we propose SiReRAG, a novel RAG indexing approach that explicitly considers both similar and related information. On the similarity side, we follow existing work and explore some variances to construct a similarity tree based on recursive summarization. On the relatedness side, SiReRAG extracts propositions and entities from texts, groups propositions via shared entities, and generates recursive summaries to construct a relatedness tree. We index and flatten both similarity and relatedness trees into a unified retrieval pool. Our experiments demonstrate that SiReRAG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art indexing methods on three multihop datasets (MuSiQue, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and HotpotQA), with an average 1.9% improvement in F1 scores. As a reasonably efficient solution, SiReRAG enhances existing reranking methods significantly, with up to 7.8% improvement in average F1 scores. Our code is available at https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/SiReRAG .

Priyanka Kargupta, Nan Zhang, Yunyi Zhang et al. · amazon-science

The rapid evolution of scientific fields introduces challenges in organizing and retrieving scientific literature. While expert-curated taxonomies have traditionally addressed this need, the process is time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, recent automatic taxonomy construction methods either (1) over-rely on a specific corpus, sacrificing generalizability, or (2) depend heavily on the general knowledge of large language models (LLMs) contained within their pre-training datasets, often overlooking the dynamic nature of evolving scientific domains. Additionally, these approaches fail to account for the multi-faceted nature of scientific literature, where a single research paper may contribute to multiple dimensions (e.g., methodology, new tasks, evaluation metrics, benchmarks). To address these gaps, we propose TaxoAdapt, a framework that dynamically adapts an LLM-generated taxonomy to a given corpus across multiple dimensions. TaxoAdapt performs iterative hierarchical classification, expanding both the taxonomy width and depth based on corpus' topical distribution. We demonstrate its state-of-the-art performance across a diverse set of computer science conferences over the years to showcase its ability to structure and capture the evolution of scientific fields. As a multidimensional method, TaxoAdapt generates taxonomies that are 26.51% more granularity-preserving and 50.41% more coherent than the most competitive baselines judged by LLMs.

Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao et al.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.