Over the past four decades, artificial intelligence (AI) research has flourished at the nexus of academia and industry. However, Big Tech companies have increasingly acquired the edge in computational resources, big data, and talent. So far, it has been largely unclear how many papers the industry funds, how their citation impact compares to non-funded papers, and what drives industry interest. This study fills that gap by quantifying the number of industry-funded papers at 10 top AI conferences (e.g., ICLR, CVPR, AAAI, ACL) and their citation influence. We analyze about 49.8K papers, about 1.8M citations from AI papers to other papers, and about 2.3M citations from other papers to AI papers from 1998-2022 in Scopus. Through seven research questions, we examine the volume and evolution of industry funding in AI research, the citation impact of funded papers, the diversity and temporal range of their citations, and the subfields in which industry predominantly acts. Our findings reveal that industry presence has grown markedly since 2015, from less than 2 percent to more than 11 percent in 2020. Between 2018 and 2022, 12 percent of industry-funded papers achieved high citation rates as measured by the h5-index, compared to 4 percent of non-industry-funded papers and 2 percent of non-funded papers. Top AI conferences engage more with industry-funded research than non-funded research, as measured by our newly proposed metric, the Citation Preference Ratio (CPR). We show that industry-funded research is increasingly insular, citing predominantly other industry-funded papers while referencing fewer non-funded papers. These findings reveal new trends in AI research funding, including a shift towards more industry-funded papers and their growing citation impact, greater insularity of industry-funded work than non-funded work, and a preference of industry-funded research to cite recent work.

This study examines the tendency to cite older work across 20 fields of study over 43 years (1980--2023). We put NLP's propensity to cite older work in the context of these 20 other fields to analyze whether NLP shows similar temporal citation patterns to these other fields over time or whether differences can be observed. Our analysis, based on a dataset of approximately 240 million papers, reveals a broader scientific trend: many fields have markedly declined in citing older works (e.g., psychology, computer science). We term this decline a 'citation age recession', analogous to how economists define periods of reduced economic activity. The trend is strongest in NLP and ML research (-12.8% and -5.5% in citation age from previous peaks). Our results suggest that citing more recent works is not directly driven by the growth in publication rates (-3.4% across fields; -5.2% in humanities; -5.5% in formal sciences) -- even when controlling for an increase in the volume of papers. Our findings raise questions about the scientific community's engagement with past literature, particularly for NLP, and the potential consequences of neglecting older but relevant research. The data and a demo showcasing our results are publicly available.

Citing papers is the primary method through which modern scientific writing discusses and builds on past work. Collectively, citing a diverse set of papers (in time and area of study) is an indicator of how widely the community is reading. Yet, there is little work looking at broad temporal patterns of citation. This work systematically and empirically examines: How far back in time do we tend to go to cite papers? How has that changed over time, and what factors correlate with this citational attention/amnesia? We chose NLP as our domain of interest and analyzed approximately 71.5K papers to show and quantify several key trends in citation. Notably, around 62% of cited papers are from the immediate five years prior to publication, whereas only about 17% are more than ten years old. Furthermore, we show that the median age and age diversity of cited papers were steadily increasing from 1990 to 2014, but since then, the trend has reversed, and current NLP papers have an all-time low temporal citation diversity. Finally, we show that unlike the 1990s, the highly cited papers in the last decade were also papers with the least citation diversity, likely contributing to the intense (and arguably harmful) recency focus. Code, data, and a demo are available on the project homepage.

We propose a new objective for option discovery that emphasizes the computational advantage of using options in planning. In a sequential machine, the speed of planning is proportional to the number of elementary operations used to achieve a good policy. For episodic tasks, the number of elementary operations depends on the number of options composed by the policy in an episode and the number of options being considered at each decision point. To reduce the amount of computation in planning, for a given set of episodic tasks and a given number of options, our objective prefers options with which it is possible to achieve a high return by composing few options, and also prefers a smaller set of options to choose from at each decision point. We develop an algorithm that optimizes the proposed objective. In a variant of the classic four-room domain, we show that 1) a higher objective value is typically associated with fewer number of elementary planning operations used by the option-value iteration algorithm to obtain a near-optimal value function, 2) our algorithm achieves an objective value that matches it achieved by two human-designed options 3) the amount of computation used by option-value iteration with options discovered by our algorithm matches it with the human-designed options, 4) the options produced by our algorithm also make intuitive sense--they seem to move to and terminate at the entrances of rooms.