Entity linking (EL) is the task of linking a textual mention to its corresponding entry in a knowledge base, and is critical for many knowledge-intensive NLP applications. When applied to tables in scientific papers, EL is a step toward large-scale scientific knowledge bases that could enable advanced scientific question answering and analytics. We present the first dataset for EL in scientific tables. EL for scientific tables is especially challenging because scientific knowledge bases can be very incomplete, and disambiguating table mentions typically requires understanding the paper’s text in addition to the table. Our dataset, Scientific Table Entity Linking (S2abEL), focuses on EL in machine learning results tables and includes hand-labeled cell types, attributed sources, and entity links from the PaperswithCode taxonomy for 8,429 cells from 732 tables. We introduce a neural baseline method designed for EL on scientific tables containing many out-of-knowledge-base mentions, and show that it significantly outperforms a state-of-the-art generic table EL method. The best baselines fall below human performance, and our analysis highlights avenues for improvement.

Despite growing interest in applying natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV) models to the scholarly domain, scientific documents remain challenging to work with. They’re often in difficult-to-use PDF formats, and the ecosystem of models to process them is fragmented and incomplete. We introduce PaperMage, an open-source Python toolkit for analyzing and processing visually-rich, structured scientific documents. PaperMage offers clean and intuitive abstractions for seamlessly representing and manipulating both textual and visual document elements. PaperMage achieves this by integrating disparate state-of-the-art NLP and CV models into a unified framework, and provides turn-key recipes for common scientific document processing use-cases. PaperMage has powered multiple research prototypes of AI applications over scientific documents, along with Semantic Scholar’s large-scale production system for processing millions of PDFs. GitHub: https://github.com/allenai/papermage

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

While human evaluation remains best practice for accurately judging the faithfulness of automatically-generated summaries, few solutions exist to address the increased difficulty and workload when evaluating long-form summaries. Through a survey of 162 papers on long-form summarization, we first shed light on current human evaluation practices surrounding long-form summaries. We find that 73% of these papers do not perform any human evaluation on model-generated summaries, while other works face new difficulties that manifest when dealing with long documents (e.g., low inter-annotator agreement). Motivated by our survey, we present LongEval, a set of guidelines for human evaluation of faithfulness in long-form summaries that addresses the following challenges: (1) How can we achieve high inter-annotator agreement on faithfulness scores? (2) How can we minimize annotator workload while maintaining accurate faithfulness scores? and (3) Do humans benefit from automated alignment between summary and source snippets? We deploy LongEval in annotation studies on two long-form summarization datasets in different domains (SQuALITY and PubMed), and we find that switching to a finer granularity of judgment (e.g., clause-level) reduces inter-annotator variance in faithfulness scores (e.g., std-dev from 18.5 to 6.8). We also show that scores from a partial annotation of fine-grained units highly correlates with scores from a full annotation workload (0.89 Kendall’s tau using 50% judgements). We release our human judgments, annotation templates, and software as a Python library for future research.