LLMs are great but they won't replace search engines anytime soon. The biggest reason is that chat-based search interfaces lack the context and flexibility that users expect and need from a search engine. ChatBot and LLMs are great. Understanding user intent is fantastic. But search is here to stay.

Keeping up with the research literature plays an important role in the workflow of scientists - allowing them to understand a field, formulate the problems they focus on, and develop the solutions that they contribute, which in turn shape the nature of the discipline. In this paper, we examine the literature review practices of data scientists. Data science represents a field seeing an exponential rise in papers, and increasingly drawing on and being applied in numerous diverse disciplines. Recent efforts have seen the development of several tools intended to help data scientists cope with a deluge of research and coordinated efforts to develop AI tools intended to uncover the research frontier. Despite these trends indicative of the information overload faced by data scientists, no prior work has examined the specific practices and challenges faced by these scientists in an interdisciplinary field with evolving scholarly norms. In this paper, we close this gap through a set of semi-structured interviews and think-aloud protocols of industry and academic data scientists (N = 20). Our results while corroborating other knowledge workers' practices uncover several novel findings: individuals (1) are challenged in seeking and sensemaking of papers beyond their disciplinary bubbles, (2) struggle to understand papers in the face of missing details and mathematical content, (3) grapple with the deluge by leveraging the knowledge context in code, blogs, and talks, and (4) lean on their peers online and in-person. Furthermore, we outline future directions likely to help data scientists cope with the burgeoning research literature.

Current natural language understanding (NLU) models have been continuously scaling up, both in terms of model size and input context, introducing more hidden and input neurons. While this generally improves performance on average, the extra neurons do not yield a consistent improvement for all instances. This is because some hidden neurons are redundant, and the noise mixed in input neurons tends to distract the model. Previous work mainly focuses on extrinsically reducing low-utility neurons by additional post- or pre-processing, such as network pruning and context selection, to avoid this problem. Beyond that, can we make the model reduce redundant parameters and suppress input noise by intrinsically enhancing the utility of each neuron? If a model can efficiently utilize neurons, no matter which neurons are ablated (disabled), the ablated submodel should perform no better than the original full model. Based on such a comparison principle between models, we propose a cross-model comparative loss for a broad range of tasks. Comparative loss is essentially a ranking loss on top of the task-specific losses of the full and ablated models, with the expectation that the task-specific loss of the full model is minimal. We demonstrate the universal effectiveness of comparative loss through extensive experiments on 14 datasets from 3 distinct NLU tasks based on 4 widely used pretrained language models, and find it particularly superior for models with few parameters or long input.

We carried out a reproducibility study of InPars recipe for unsupervised training of neural rankers. As a by-product of this study, we developed a simple-yet-effective modification of InPars, which we called InPars-light. Unlike InPars, InPars-light uses only a freely available language model BLOOM and 7x-100x smaller ranking models. On all five English retrieval collections (used in the original InPars study) we obtained substantial (7-30%) and statistically significant improvements over BM25 in nDCG or MRR using only a 30M parameter six-layer MiniLM ranker. In contrast, in the InPars study only a 100x larger MonoT5-3B model consistently outperformed BM25, whereas their smaller MonoT5-220M model (which is still 7x larger than our MiniLM ranker), outperformed BM25 only on MS MARCO and TREC DL 2020. In a purely unsupervised setting, our 435M parameter DeBERTA v3 ranker was roughly at par with the 7x larger MonoT5-3B: In fact, on three out of five datasets, it slightly outperformed MonoT5-3B. Finally, these good results were achieved by re-ranking only 100 candidate documents compared to 1000 used in InPars. We believe that InPars-light is the first truly cost-effective prompt-based unsupervised recipe to train and deploy neural ranking models that outperform BM25.

The F1 score (aka F-measure) is a popular metric for evaluating the performance of a classification model. In the case of multi-class classification, we adopt averaging methods for F1 score calculation, resulting in a set of different average scores (macro, weighted, micro) in the classification report. This article looks at the meaning of these averages, how to calculate them, and which one to choose for reporting. Note: Skip this section if you are already familiar with the concepts of precision, recall, and F1 score. Layman definition: Of all the positive predictions I made, how many of them are truly positive?

Nowadays, time-stamped web documents related to a general news query floods spread throughout the Internet, and timeline summarization targets concisely summarizing the evolution trajectory of events along the timeline. Unlike traditional document summarization, timeline summarization needs to model the time series information of the input events and summarize important events in chronological order. To tackle this challenge, in this paper, we propose a Unified Timeline Summarizer (UTS) that can generate abstractive and extractive timeline summaries in time order. Concretely, in the encoder part, we propose a graph-based event encoder that relates multiple events according to their content dependency and learns a global representation of each event. In the decoder part, to ensure the chronological order of the abstractive summary, we propose to extract the feature of event-level attention in its generation process with sequential information remained and use it to simulate the evolutionary attention of the ground truth summary. The event-level attention can also be used to assist in extracting summary, where the extracted summary also comes in time sequence. We augment the previous Chinese large-scale timeline summarization dataset and collect a new English timeline dataset. Extensive experiments conducted on these datasets and on the out-of-domain Timeline 17 dataset show that UTS achieves state-of-the-art performance in terms of both automatic and human evaluations.

This paper presents our solutions for the MediaEval 2022 task on DisasterMM. The task is composed of two subtasks, namely (i) Relevance Classification of Twitter Posts (RCTP), and (ii) Location Extraction from Twitter Texts (LETT). The RCTP subtask aims at differentiating flood-related and non-relevant social posts while LETT is a Named Entity Recognition (NER) task and aims at the extraction of location information from the text. For RCTP, we proposed four different solutions based on BERT, RoBERTa, Distil BERT, and ALBERT obtaining an F1-score of 0.7934, 0.7970, 0.7613, and 0.7924, respectively. For LETT, we used three models namely BERT, RoBERTa, and Distil BERTA obtaining an F1-score of 0.6256, 0.6744, and 0.6723, respectively.

Keyphrase identification and classification is a Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval task that involves extracting relevant groups of words from a given text related to the main topic. In this work, we focus on extracting keyphrases from scientific documents. We introduce TA-DA, a Topic-Aware Domain Adaptation framework for keyphrase extraction that integrates Multi-Task Learning with Adversarial Training and Domain Adaptation. Our approach improves performance over baseline models by up to 5% in the exact match of the F1-score.

This work addresses an alternative approach for query expansion (QE) using a generative adversarial network (GAN) to enhance the effectiveness of information search in e-commerce. We propose a modified QE conditional GAN (mQE-CGAN) framework, which resolves keywords by expanding the query with a synthetically generated query that proposes semantic information from text input. We train a sequence-to-sequence transformer model as the generator to produce keywords and use a recurrent neural network model as the discriminator to classify an adversarial output with the generator. With the modified CGAN framework, various forms of semantic insights gathered from the query document corpus are introduced to the generation process. We leverage these insights as conditions for the generator model and discuss their effectiveness for the query expansion task. Our experiments demonstrate that the utilization of condition structures within the mQE-CGAN framework can increase the semantic similarity between generated sequences and reference documents up to nearly 10% compared to baseline models

The performance of an algorithm often critically depends on its parameter configuration. While a variety of automated algorithm configuration methods have been proposed to relieve users from the tedious and error-prone task of manually tuning parameters, there is still a lot of untapped potential as the learned configuration is static, i.e., parameter settings remain fixed throughout the run. However, it has been shown that some algorithm parameters are best adjusted dynamically during execution. Thus far, this is most commonly achieved through hand-crafted heuristics. A promising recent alternative is to automatically learn such dynamic parameter adaptation policies from data. In this article, we give the first comprehensive account of this new field of automated dynamic algorithm configuration (DAC), present a series of recent advances, and provide a solid foundation for future research in this field. Specifically, we (i) situate DAC in the broader historical context of AI research; (ii) formalize DAC as a computational problem; (iii) identify the methods used in prior art to tackle this problem; and (iv) conduct empirical case studies for using DAC in evolutionary optimization, AI planning, and machine learning.