The scientific literature's exponential growth makes it increasingly challenging to navigate and synthesize knowledge across disciplines. Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools for understanding scientific text, but they fail to capture detailed relationships across large bodies of work. Unstructured approaches, like retrieval augmented generation, can sift through such corpora to recall relevant facts; however, when millions of facts influence the answer, unstructured approaches become cost prohibitive. Structured representations offer a natural complement -- enabling systematic analysis across the whole corpus. Recent work enhances LLMs with unstructured or semistructured representations of scientific concepts; to complement this, we try extracting structured representations using LLMs. By combining LLMs' semantic understanding with a schema of scientific concepts, we prototype a system that answers precise questions about the literature as a whole. Our schema applies across scientific fields and we extract concepts from it using only 20 manually annotated abstracts. To demonstrate the system, we extract concepts from 30,000 papers on arXiv spanning astrophysics, fluid dynamics, and evolutionary biology. The resulting database highlights emerging trends and, by visualizing the knowledge graph, offers new ways to explore the ever-growing landscape of scientific knowledge. Demo: abby101/surveyor-0 on HF Spaces. Code: https://github.com/chiral-carbon/kg-for-science.

Language model performance depends on identifying the optimal mixture of data groups to train on (e.g., law, code, math). Prior work has proposed a diverse set of methods to efficiently learn mixture proportions, ranging from fitting regression models over training runs to dynamically updating proportions throughout training. Surprisingly, we find that no existing method consistently outperforms a simple stratified sampling baseline in terms of average test perplexity per group. In this paper, we study the cause of this inconsistency by unifying existing methods into a standard optimization framework. We show that all methods set proportions to minimize total loss, subject to a method-specific mixing law -- an assumption on how loss is a function of mixture proportions. We find that existing parameterizations of mixing laws can express the true loss-proportion relationship empirically, but the methods themselves often set the mixing law parameters inaccurately, resulting in poor and inconsistent performance. Finally, we leverage the insights from our framework to derive a new online method named Aioli, which directly estimates the mixing law parameters throughout training and uses them to dynamically adjust proportions. Empirically, Aioli outperforms stratified sampling on 6 out of 6 datasets by an average of 0.28 test perplexity points, whereas existing methods fail to consistently beat stratified sampling, doing up to 6.9 points worse. Moreover, in a practical setting where proportions are learned on shorter runs due to computational constraints, Aioli can dynamically adjust these proportions over the full training run, consistently improving performance over existing methods by up to 12.01 test perplexity points.

Transformers have revolutionized machine learning across diverse domains, yet understanding their behavior remains crucial, particularly in high-stakes applications. This paper introduces the contextual counting task, a novel toy problem aimed at enhancing our understanding of Transformers in quantitative and scientific contexts. This task requires precise localization and computation within datasets, akin to object detection or region-based scientific analysis. We present theoretical and empirical analysis using both causal and non-causal Transformer architectures, investigating the influence of various positional encodings on performance and interpretability. In particular, we find that causal attention is much better suited for the task, and that no positional embeddings lead to the best accuracy, though rotary embeddings are competitive and easier to train. We also show that out of distribution performance is tightly linked to which tokens it uses as a bias term.

The choice of hyperparameters greatly impacts performance in natural language processing. Often, it is hard to tell if a method is better than another or just better tuned. Tuning curves fix this ambiguity by accounting for tuning effort. Specifically, they plot validation performance as a function of the number of hyperparameter choices tried so far. While several estimators exist for these curves, it is common to use point estimates, which we show fail silently and give contradictory results when given too little data. Beyond point estimates, confidence bands are necessary to rigorously establish the relationship between different approaches. We present the first method to construct valid confidence bands for tuning curves. The bands are exact, simultaneous, and distribution-free, thus they provide a robust basis for comparing methods. Empirical analysis shows that while bootstrap confidence bands, which serve as a baseline, fail to approximate their target confidence, ours achieve it exactly. We validate our design with ablations, analyze the effect of sample size, and provide guidance on comparing models with our method. To promote confident comparisons in future work, we release a library implementing the method at https://github.com/nalourie/opda .

Leaderboards have eased model development for many NLP datasets by standardizing their evaluation and delegating it to an independent external repository. Their adoption, however, is so far limited to tasks that can be reliably evaluated in an automatic manner. This work introduces GENIE, an extensible human evaluation leaderboard, which brings the ease of leaderboards to text generation tasks. GENIE automatically posts leaderboard submissions to crowdsourcing platforms asking human annotators to evaluate them on various axes (e.g., correctness, conciseness, fluency) and compares their answers to various automatic metrics. We introduce several datasets in English to GENIE, representing four core challenges in text generation: machine translation, summarization, commonsense reasoning, and machine comprehension. We provide formal granular evaluation metrics and identify areas for future research. We make GENIE publicly available and hope that it will spur progress in language generation models as well as their automatic and manual evaluation.

When answering a question, people often draw upon their rich world knowledge in addition to some task-specific context. Recent work has focused primarily on answering questions based on some relevant document or content, and required very little general background. To investigate question answering with prior knowledge, we present CommonsenseQA: a difficult new dataset for commonsense question answering. To capture common sense beyond associations, each question discriminates between three target concepts that all share the same relationship to a single source drawn from ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017). This constraint encourages crowd workers to author multiple-choice questions with complex semantics, in which all candidates relate to the subject in a similar way. We create 9,500 questions through this procedure and demonstrate the dataset's difficulty with a large number of strong baselines. Our best baseline, the OpenAI GPT (Radford et al., 2018), obtains 54.8% accuracy, well below human performance, which is 95.3%.