Why Did You Not Compare With That? Identifying Papers for Use as Baselines
This addresses the challenge for researchers in efficiently identifying baseline comparisons in literature, though it is incremental as it builds on existing citation role classification methods.
The paper tackles the problem of automatically identifying which references in scientific articles are used as baselines, framing it as a binary classification task. They developed a dataset of 2,075 papers with manually annotated references and a multi-module attention-based neural classifier that outperforms four state-of-the-art citation role classification methods.
We propose the task of automatically identifying papers used as baselines in a scientific article. We frame the problem as a binary classification task where all the references in a paper are to be classified as either baselines or non-baselines. This is a challenging problem due to the numerous ways in which a baseline reference can appear in a paper. We develop a dataset of $2,075$ papers from ACL anthology corpus with all their references manually annotated as one of the two classes. We develop a multi-module attention-based neural classifier for the baseline classification task that outperforms four state-of-the-art citation role classification methods when applied to the baseline classification task. We also present an analysis of the errors made by the proposed classifier, eliciting the challenges that make baseline identification a challenging problem.