Artificial intelligence has been introduced as a way to improve access to mental health support. However, most AI mental health chatbots rely on a limited range of disciplinary input, and fail to integrate expertise across the chatbot's lifecycle. This paper examines the cost-benefit trade-off of interdisciplinary collaboration in AI mental health chatbots. We argue that involving experts from technology, healthcare, ethics, and law across key lifecycle phases is essential to ensure value-alignment and compliance with the high-risk requirements of the AI Act. We also highlight practical recommendations and existing frameworks to help balance the challenges and benefits of interdisciplinarity in mental health chatbots.

Uncertainty of scientific findings are typically reported through statistical metrics such as $p$-values, confidence intervals, etc. The magnitude of this objective uncertainty is reflected in the language used by the authors to report their findings primarily through expressions carrying uncertainty-inducing terms or phrases. This language uncertainty is a subjective concept and is highly dependent on the writing style of the authors. There is evidence that such subjective uncertainty influences the impact of science on public audience. In this work, we turned our focus to scientists themselves, and measured/analyzed the subjective uncertainty and its impact within scientific communities across different disciplines. We showed that the level of this type of uncertainty varies significantly across different fields, years of publication and geographical locations. We also studied the correlation between subjective uncertainty and several bibliographical metrics, such as number/gender of authors, centrality of the field's community, citation count, etc. The underlying patterns identified in this work are useful in identification and documentation of linguistic norms in scientific communication in different communities/societies.

How many times must a phenomenon occur before it graduates from a coincidence to a pattern? Usually, the answer depends on how unlikely, how far from the ordinary, and how (seemingly) inexplicable the phenomenon is. The more so, the lower the threshold. I was very surprised (and pleased) to read of this year's winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics: John Hopfield, a professor of Molecular Biology and earlier of Chemistry and Biology, together with Geoffrey Hinton, a professor of Computer Science. Their affiliations name three major scientific fields, none of them being Physics!

With the goal of uncovering the challenges faced by European AI students during their research endeavors, we surveyed 28 AI doctoral candidates from 13 European countries. The outcomes underscore challenges in three key areas: (1) the findability and quality of AI resources such as datasets, models, and experiments; (2) the difficulties in replicating the experiments in AI papers; (3) and the lack of trustworthiness and interdisciplinarity. From our findings, it appears that although early stage AI researchers generally tend to share their AI resources, they lack motivation or knowledge to engage more in dataset and code preparation and curation, and ethical assessments, and are not used to cooperate with well-versed experts in application domains. Furthermore, we examine existing practices in data governance and reproducibility both in computer science and in artificial intelligence. For instance, only a minority of venues actively promote reproducibility initiatives such as reproducibility evaluations. Critically, there is need for immediate adoption of responsible and reproducible AI research practices, crucial for society at large, and essential for the AI research community in particular. This paper proposes a combination of social and technical recommendations to overcome the identified challenges. Socially, we propose the general adoption of reproducibility initiatives in AI conferences and journals, as well as improved interdisciplinary collaboration, especially in data governance practices. On the technical front, we call for enhanced tools to better support versioning control of datasets and code, and a computing infrastructure that facilitates the sharing and discovery of AI resources, as well as the sharing, execution, and verification of experiments.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is poised to substantially influence the world. However, significant progress comes hand-in-hand with substantial risks. Addressing them requires broad engagement with various fields of study. Yet, little empirical work examines the state of such engagement (past or current). In this paper, we quantify the degree of influence between 23 fields of study and NLP (on each other). We analyzed ~77k NLP papers, ~3.1m citations from NLP papers to other papers, and ~1.8m citations from other papers to NLP papers. We show that, unlike most fields, the cross-field engagement of NLP, measured by our proposed Citation Field Diversity Index (CFDI), has declined from 0.58 in 1980 to 0.31 in 2022 (an all-time low). In addition, we find that NLP has grown more insular -- citing increasingly more NLP papers and having fewer papers that act as bridges between fields. NLP citations are dominated by computer science; Less than 8% of NLP citations are to linguistics, and less than 3% are to math and psychology. These findings underscore NLP's urgent need to reflect on its engagement with various fields.

The exponential growth in scholarly publications necessitates advanced tools for efficient article retrieval, especially in interdisciplinary fields where diverse terminologies are used to describe similar research. Traditional keyword-based search engines often fall short in assisting users who may not be familiar with specific terminologies. To address this, we present a knowledge graph-based paper search engine for biomedical research to enhance the user experience in discovering relevant queries and articles. The system, dubbed DiscoverPath, employs Named Entity Recognition (NER) and part-of-speech (POS) tagging to extract terminologies and relationships from article abstracts to create a KG. To reduce information overload, DiscoverPath presents users with a focused subgraph containing the queried entity and its neighboring nodes and incorporates a query recommendation system, enabling users to iteratively refine their queries. The system is equipped with an accessible Graphical User Interface that provides an intuitive visualization of the KG, query recommendations, and detailed article information, enabling efficient article retrieval, thus fostering interdisciplinary knowledge exploration. DiscoverPath is open-sourced at https://github.com/ynchuang/DiscoverPath.

Interdisciplinarity has over the recent years have gained tremendous importance and has become one of the key ways of doing cutting edge research . In this paper we attempt to model the citation flow across three different fields - Physics (PHY), Mathematics (MA) and Computer Science (CS). For instance, is there a specific pattern in which these fields cite one another? We carry out experiments on a dataset comprising more than 1.2 million articles taken from these three fields. We quantify the citation interactions among these three fields through temporal bucket signatures. We present numerical models based on variants of the recently proposed relay-linking framework to explain the citation dynamics across the three disciplines. These models make a modest attempt to unfold the underlying principles of how citation links could have been formed across the three fields over time.

This paper presents a hierarchical classification system that automatically categorizes a scholarly publication using its abstract into a three-tier hierarchical label set (discipline, field, subfield) in a multi-class setting. This system enables a holistic categorization of research activities in the mentioned hierarchy in terms of knowledge production through articles and impact through citations, permitting those activities to fall into multiple categories. The classification system distinguishes 44 disciplines, 718 fields and 1,485 subfields among 160 million abstract snippets in Microsoft Academic Graph (version 2018-05-17). We used batch training in a modularized and distributed fashion to address and allow for interdisciplinary and interfield classifications in single-label and multi-label settings. In total, we have conducted 3,140 experiments in all considered models (Convolutional Neural Networks, Recurrent Neural Networks, Transformers). The classification accuracy is > 90% in 77.13% and 78.19% of the single-label and multi-label classifications, respectively. We examine the advantages of our classification by its ability to better align research texts and output with disciplines, to adequately classify them in an automated way, and to capture the degree of interdisciplinarity. The proposed system (a set of pre-trained models) can serve as a backbone to an interactive system for indexing scientific publications in the future.

The peer merit review of research proposals has been the major mechanism for deciding grant awards. However, research proposals have become increasingly interdisciplinary. It has been a longstanding challenge to assign interdisciplinary proposals to appropriate reviewers, so proposals are fairly evaluated. One of the critical steps in reviewer assignment is to generate accurate interdisciplinary topic labels for proposal-reviewer matching. Existing systems mainly collect topic labels manually generated by principal investigators. However, such human-reported labels can be non-accurate, incomplete, labor intensive, and time costly. What role can AI play in developing a fair and precise proposal reviewer assignment system? In this study, we collaborate with the National Science Foundation of China to address the task of automated interdisciplinary topic path detection. For this purpose, we develop a deep Hierarchical Interdisciplinary Research Proposal Classification Network (HIRPCN). Specifically, we first propose a hierarchical transformer to extract the textual semantic information of proposals. We then design an interdisciplinary graph and leverage GNNs for learning representations of each discipline in order to extract interdisciplinary knowledge. After extracting the semantic and interdisciplinary knowledge, we design a level-wise prediction component to fuse the two types of knowledge representations and detect interdisciplinary topic paths for each proposal. We conduct extensive experiments and expert evaluations on three real-world datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model.

In response to calls for greater interdisciplinary involvement from the social sciences and humanities in the development, governance, and study of artificial intelligence systems, this paper presents one sociologist's view on the problem of algorithmic bias and the reproduction of societal bias. Discussions of bias in AI cover much of the same conceptual terrain that sociologists studying inequality have long understood using more specific terms and theories. Concerns over reproducing societal bias should be informed by an understanding of the ways that inequality is continually reproduced in society -- processes that AI systems are either complicit in, or can be designed to disrupt and counter. The contrast presented here is between conservative and radical approaches to AI, with conservatism referring to dominant tendencies that reproduce and strengthen the status quo, while radical approaches work to disrupt systemic forms of inequality. The limitations of conservative approaches to class, gender, and racial bias are discussed as specific examples, along with the social structures and processes that biases in these areas are linked to. Societal issues can no longer be out of scope for AI and machine learning, given the impact of these systems on human lives. This requires engagement with a growing body of critical AI scholarship that goes beyond biased data to analyze structured ways of perpetuating inequality, opening up the possibility for radical alternatives.