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 them over time or whether differences can be observed. Our analysis, based on a dataset of ~240 million papers, reveals a broader scientific trend: many fields have markedly declined in citing older works (e.g., psychology, computer science). 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.

Meeting summarization has become a critical task since digital encounters have become a common practice. Large language models (LLMs) show great potential in summarization, offering enhanced coherence and context understanding compared to traditional methods. However, they still struggle to maintain relevance and avoid hallucination. We introduce a multi-LLM correction approach for meeting summarization using a two-phase process that mimics the human review process: mistake identification and summary refinement. We release QMSum Mistake, a dataset of 200 automatically generated meeting summaries annotated by humans on nine error types, including structural, omission, and irrelevance errors. Our experiments show that these errors can be identified with high accuracy by an LLM. We transform identified mistakes into actionable feedback to improve the quality of a given summary measured by relevance, informativeness, conciseness, and coherence. This post-hoc refinement effectively improves summary quality by leveraging multiple LLMs to validate output quality. Our multi-LLM approach for meeting summarization shows potential for similar complex text generation tasks requiring robustness, action planning, and discussion towards a goal.

Paraphrases represent a human’s intuitive ability to understand expressions presented in various different ways. Current paraphrase evaluations of language models primarily use binary approaches, offering limited interpretability of specific text changes. Atomic paraphrase types (APT) decompose paraphrases into different linguistic changes and offer a granular view of the flexibility in linguistic expression (e.g., a shift in syntax or vocabulary used). In this study, we assess the human preferences towards ChatGPT in generating English paraphrases with ten APTs and five prompting techniques. We introduce APTY (Atomic Paraphrase TYpes), a dataset of 800 sentence-level and word-level annotations by 15 annotators. The dataset also provides a human preference ranking of paraphrases with different types that can be used to fine-tune models with RLHF and DPO methods. Our results reveal that ChatGPT and a DPO-trained LLama 7B model can generate simple APTs, such as additions and deletions, but struggle with complex structures (e.g., subordination changes). This study contributes to understanding which aspects of paraphrasing language models have already succeeded at understanding and what remains elusive. In addition, we show how our curated datasets can be used to develop language models with specific linguistic capabilities.

The quality of meeting summaries generated by natural language generation (NLG) systems is hard to measure automatically. Established metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore have a relatively low correlation with human judgments and fail to capture nuanced errors. Recent studies suggest using large language models (LLMs), which have the benefit of better context understanding and adaption of error definitions without training on a large number of human preference judgments. However, current LLM-based evaluators risk masking errors and can only serve as a weak proxy, leaving human evaluation the gold standard despite being costly and hard to compare across studies. In this work, we present MESA, an LLM-based framework employing a three-step assessment of individual error types, multi-agent discussion for decision refinement, and feedback-based self-training to refine error definition understanding and alignment with human judgment. We show that MESA’s components enable thorough error detection, consistent rating, and adaptability to custom error guidelines. Using GPT-4o as its backbone, MESA achieves mid to high Point-Biserial correlation with human judgment in error detection and mid Spearman and Kendall correlation in reflecting error impact on summary quality, on average 0.25 higher than previous methods. The framework’s flexibility in adapting to custom error guidelines makes it suitable for various tasks with limited human-labeled data.