Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created BrainBench, a forward-looking benchmark for predicting neuroscience results. We find that LLMs surpass experts in predicting experimental outcomes. BrainGPT, an LLM we tuned on the neuroscience literature, performed better yet. Like human experts, when LLMs were confident in their predictions, they were more likely to be correct, which presages a future where humans and LLMs team together to make discoveries. Our approach is not neuroscience-specific and is transferable to other knowledge-intensive endeavors.

Citation generation aims to generate a citation sentence that refers to a chosen paper in the context of a manuscript. However, a rigid citation generation process is at odds with an author's desire to control specific attributes, such as 1) the citation intent, e.g., either introducing background information or comparing results, and 2) keywords that should appear in the citation text. To provide these degrees of controllability during citation generation, we propose to integrate the manuscript context, the context of the referenced paper, and the desired control attributes into a structured template and use it to fine-tune a language model (LM) via next-token prediction. We then utilize Proximal Policy Optimization to directly optimize the LM in favor of a high score of our proposed controllability metric. The proposed workflow harmoniously combines citation attribute suggestion and conditional citation generation into one LM, allowing for better user control.

Scientific writing involves retrieving, summarizing, and citing relevant papers, which can be time-consuming processes in large and rapidly evolving fields. By making these processes inter-operable, natural language processing (NLP) provides opportunities for creating end-to-end assistive writing tools. We propose SciLit, a pipeline that automatically recommends relevant papers, extracts highlights, and suggests a reference sentence as a citation of a paper, taking into consideration the user-provided context and keywords. SciLit efficiently recommends papers from large databases of hundreds of millions of papers using a two-stage pre-fetching and re-ranking literature search system that flexibly deals with addition and removal of a paper database. We provide a convenient user interface that displays the recommended papers as extractive summaries and that offers abstractively-generated citing sentences which are aligned with the provided context and which mention the chosen keyword(s). Our assistive tool for literature discovery and scientific writing is available at https://scilit.vercel.app

We introduce MemSum-DQA, an efficient system for document question answering (DQA) that leverages MemSum, a long document extractive summarizer. By prefixing each text block in the parsed document with the provided question and question type, MemSum-DQA selectively extracts text blocks as answers from documents. On full-document answering tasks, this approach yields a 9% improvement in exact match accuracy over prior state-of-the-art baselines. Notably, MemSum-DQA excels in addressing questions related to child-relationship understanding, underscoring the potential of extractive summarization techniques for DQA tasks.

The abstracts of scientific papers consist of premises and conclusions. Structured abstracts explicitly highlight the conclusion sentences, whereas non-structured abstracts may have conclusion sentences at uncertain positions. This implicit nature of conclusion positions makes the automatic segmentation of scientific abstracts into premises and conclusions a challenging task. In this work, we empirically explore using Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) for abstract segmentation. We consider each abstract as a recurrent cycle of sentences and place segmentation boundaries by greedily optimizing the NMI score between premises and conclusions. On non-structured abstracts, our proposed unsupervised approach GreedyCAS achieves the best performance across all evaluation metrics; on structured abstracts, GreedyCAS outperforms all baseline methods measured by $P_k$. The strong correlation of NMI to our evaluation metrics reveals the effectiveness of NMI for abstract segmentation.

This paper tackles the task of legal extractive summarization using a dataset of 430K U.S. court opinions with key passages annotated. According to automated summary quality metrics, the reinforcement-learning-based MemSum model is best and even out-performs transformer-based models. In turn, expert human evaluation shows that MemSum summaries effectively capture the key points of lengthy court opinions. Motivated by these results, we open-source our models to the general public. This represents progress towards democratizing law and making U.S. court opinions more accessible to the general public.