Existing techniques for citation recommendation are constrained by their adherence to article contents and metadata. We leverage GPT-4o-mini's latent expertise as an inquisitive assistant by instructing it to ask questions which, when answered, could expose new insights about an excerpt from a scientific article. We evaluate the utility of these questions as retrieval queries, measuring their effectiveness in retrieving and ranking masked target documents. In some cases, generated questions ended up being better queries than extractive keyword queries generated by the same model. We additionally propose MMR-RBO, a variation of Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) using Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) to identify which questions will perform competitively with the keyword baseline. As all question queries yield unique result sets, we contend that there are no stupid questions.
In the era of foundation models, Out-of- Distribution (OOD) problems, i.e., the data discrepancy between the training environments and testing environments, hinder AI generalization. Further, relational data like graphs disobeying the Independent and Identically Distributed (IID) condition makes the problem more challenging, especially much harder when it is associated with time. Motivated by this, to realize the robust invariant learning over temporal graphs, we want to investigate what components in temporal graphs are most invariant and representative with respect to labels. With the Information Bottleneck (IB) method, we propose an error-bounded Invariant Link Selector that can distinguish invariant components and variant components during the training process to make the deep learning model generalizable for different testing scenarios. Besides deriving a series of rigorous generalizable optimization functions, we also equip the training with task-specific loss functions, e.g., temporal link prediction, to make pretrained models solve real-world application tasks like citation recommendation and merchandise recommendation, as demonstrated in our experiments with state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/kthrn22/OOD-Linker.
Citations are crucial in scientific research articles as they highlight the connection between the current study and prior work. However, this process is often time-consuming for researchers. In this study, we propose the SciRGC framework, which aims to automatically recommend citation articles and generate citation sentences for citation locations within articles. The framework addresses two key challenges in academic citation generation: 1) how to accurately identify the author's citation intent and find relevant citation papers, and 2) how to generate high-quality citation sentences that align with human preferences. We enhance citation recommendation accuracy in the citation article recommendation module by incorporating citation networks and sentiment intent, and generate reasoning-based citation sentences in the citation sentence generation module by using the original article abstract, local context, citation intent, and recommended articles as inputs. Additionally, we propose a new evaluation metric to fairly assess the quality of generated citation sentences. Through comparisons with baseline models and ablation experiments, the SciRGC framework not only improves the accuracy and relevance of citation recommendations but also ensures the appropriateness of the generated citation sentences in context, providing a valuable tool for interdisciplinary researchers.
We present components of an AI-assisted academic writing system including citation recommendation and introduction writing. The system recommends citations by considering the user's current document context to provide relevant suggestions. It generates introductions in a structured fashion, situating the contributions of the research relative to prior work. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the components through quantitative evaluations. Finally, the paper presents qualitative research exploring how researchers incorporate citations into their writing workflows. Our findings indicate that there is demand for precise AI-assisted writing systems and simple, effective methods for meeting those needs.
Citation recommendation aims to locate the important papers for scholars to cite. When writing the citing sentences, the authors usually hold different citing intents, which are referred to citation function in citation analysis. Since argumentative zoning is to identify the argumentative and rhetorical structure in scientific literature, we want to use this information to improve the citation recommendation task. In this paper, a multi-task learning model is built for citation recommendation and argumentative zoning classification. We also generated an annotated corpus of the data from PubMed Central based on a new argumentative zoning schema. The experimental results show that, by considering the argumentative information in the citing sentence, citation recommendation model will get better performance.
Local citation recommendation (LCR) suggests a set of papers for a citation placeholder within a given context. The task has evolved as generative approaches have become more promising than the traditional pre-fetch and re-rank-based state-of-the-art approaches. This paper introduces citation-specific pre-training within an encoder-decoder architecture, where author-date citation tokens are masked to learn to reconstruct them to fulfill LCR. There are two variants for this pre-training. In the local context-only base scheme (CiteBART-Base), the citation token in a local context is masked to learn to predict the citation. The global version (CiteBART-Global) extends the local context with the citing paper's title and abstract to enrich the learning signal. CiteBART-Global achieves state-of-the-art performance on LCR benchmarks except for the FullTextPeerRead dataset, which is quite small to see the advantage of generative pre-training. The effect is significant in the larger benchmarks, e.g., Refseer and ArXiv., with the Refseer benchmark-trained model emerging as the best-performing model. We perform comprehensive experiments, including an ablation study, a qualitative analysis, and a taxonomy of hallucinations with detailed statistics. Our analyses confirm that CiteBART-Global has a cross-dataset generalization capability; the macro hallucination rate (MaHR) at the top-3 predictions is 4\%, and when the ground-truth is in the top-k prediction list, the hallucination tendency in the other predictions drops significantly.
Citation recommendation systems have attracted much academic interest, resulting in many studies and implementations. These systems help authors automatically generate proper citations by suggesting relevant references based on the text they have written. However, the methods used in citation recommendation differ across various studies and implementations. Some approaches focus on the overall content of papers, while others consider the context of the citation text. Additionally, the datasets used in these studies include different aspects of papers, such as metadata, citation context, or even the full text of the paper in various formats and structures. The diversity in models, datasets, and evaluation metrics makes it challenging to assess and compare citation recommendation methods effectively. To address this issue, a standardized dataset and evaluation metrics are needed to evaluate these models consistently. Therefore, we propose developing a benchmark specifically designed to analyze and compare citation recommendation models. This benchmark will evaluate the performance of models on different features of the citation context and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the models across all these tasks, presenting the results in a standardized way. By creating a benchmark with standardized evaluation metrics, researchers and practitioners in the field of citation recommendation will have a common platform to assess and compare different models. This will enable meaningful comparisons and help identify promising approaches for further research and development in the field.
Citing pertinent literature is pivotal to writing and reviewing a scientific document. Existing techniques mainly focus on the local context or the global context for recommending citations but fail to consider the actual human citation behaviour. We propose SymTax, a three-stage recommendation architecture that considers both the local and the global context, and additionally the taxonomical representations of query-candidate tuples and the Symbiosis prevailing amongst them. SymTax learns to embed the infused taxonomies in the hyperbolic space and uses hyperbolic separation as a latent feature to compute query-candidate similarity. We build a novel and large dataset ArSyTa containing 8.27 million citation contexts and describe the creation process in detail. We conduct extensive experiments and ablation studies to demonstrate the effectiveness and design choice of each module in our framework. Also, combinatorial analysis from our experiments shed light on the choice of language models (LMs) and fusion embedding, and the inclusion of section heading as a signal. Our proposed module that captures the symbiotic relationship solely leads to performance gains of 26.66% and 39.25% in Recall@5 w.r.t. SOTA on ACL-200 and RefSeer datasets, respectively. The complete framework yields a gain of 22.56% in Recall@5 wrt SOTA on our proposed dataset. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/goyalkaraniit/SymTax
We explore link prediction as a proxy for automatically surfacing documents from existing literature that might be topically or contextually relevant to a new document. Our model uses transformer-based graph embeddings to encode the meaning of each document, presented as a node within a citation network. We show that the semantic representations that our model generates can outperform other content-based methods in recommendation and ranking tasks. This provides a holistic approach to exploring citation graphs in domains where it is critical that these documents properly cite each other, so as to minimize the possibility of any inconsistencies
Existing Machine Learning approaches for local citation recommendation directly map or translate a query, which is typically a claim or an entity mention, to citation-worthy research papers. Within such a formulation, it is challenging to pinpoint why one should cite a specific research paper for a particular query, leading to limited recommendation interpretability. To alleviate this, we introduce the evidence-grounded local citation recommendation task, where the target latent space comprises evidence spans for recommending specific papers. Using a distantly-supervised evidence retrieval and multi-step re-ranking framework, our proposed system, ILCiteR, recommends papers to cite for a query grounded on similar evidence spans extracted from the existing research literature. Unlike past formulations that simply output recommendations, ILCiteR retrieves ranked lists of evidence span and recommended paper pairs. Secondly, previously proposed neural models for citation recommendation require expensive training on massive labeled data, ideally after every significant update to the pool of candidate papers. In contrast, ILCiteR relies solely on distant supervision from a dynamic evidence database and pre-trained Transformer-based Language Models without any model training. We contribute a novel dataset for the evidence-grounded local citation recommendation task and demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed conditional neural rank-ensembling approach for re-ranking evidence spans.
Citing comprehensively and appropriately has become a challenging task with the explosive growth of scientific publications. Current citation recommendation systems aim to recommend a list of scientific papers for a given text context or a draft paper. However, none of the existing work focuses on already included citations of full papers, which are imperfect and still have much room for improvement. In the scenario of peer reviewing, it is a common phenomenon that submissions are identified as missing vital citations by reviewers. This may lead to a negative impact on the credibility and validity of the research presented. To help improve citations of full papers, we first define a novel task of Recommending Missed Citations Identified by Reviewers (RMC) and construct a corresponding expert-labeled dataset called CitationR. We conduct an extensive evaluation of several state-of-the-art methods on CitationR. Furthermore, we propose a new framework RMCNet with an Attentive Reference Encoder module mining the relevance between papers, already-made citations, and missed citations. Empirical results prove that RMC is challenging, with the proposed architecture outperforming previous methods in all metrics. We release our dataset and benchmark models to motivate future research on this challenging new task.
Citation recommendation is the task of finding appropriate citations based on a given piece of text. The proposed datasets for this task consist mainly of several scientific fields, lacking some core ones, such as law. Furthermore, citation recommendation is used within the legal domain to identify supporting arguments, utilizing non-scholarly legal articles. In order to alleviate the limitations of existing studies, we gather the first scholarly legal dataset for the task of citation recommendation. Also, we conduct experiments with state-of-the-art models and compare their performance on this dataset. The study suggests that, while BM25 is a strong benchmark for the legal citation recommendation task, the most effective method involves implementing a two-step process that entails pre-fetching with BM25+, followed by re-ranking with SciNCL, which enhances the performance of the baseline from 0.26 to 0.30 MAP@10. Moreover, fine-tuning leads to considerable performance increases in pre-trained models, which shows the importance of including legal articles in the training data of these models.
Citations in scholarly work serve the essential purpose of acknowledging and crediting the original sources of knowledge that have been incorporated or referenced. Depending on their surrounding textual context, these citations are used for different motivations and purposes. Large Language Models (LLMs) could be helpful in capturing these fine-grained citation information via the corresponding textual context, thereby enabling a better understanding towards the literature. Furthermore, these citations also establish connections among scientific papers, providing high-quality inter-document relationships and human-constructed knowledge. Such information could be incorporated into LLMs pre-training and improve the text representation in LLMs. Therefore, in this paper, we offer a preliminary review of the mutually beneficial relationship between LLMs and citation analysis. Specifically, we review the application of LLMs for in-text citation analysis tasks, including citation classification, citation-based summarization, and citation recommendation. We then summarize the research pertinent to leveraging citation linkage knowledge to improve text representations of LLMs via citation prediction, network structure information, and inter-document relationship. We finally provide an overview of these contemporary methods and put forth potential promising avenues in combining LLMs and citation analysis for further investigation.
Citation recommendation (CR) models may help authors find relevant articles at various stages of the paper writing process. Most research has dealt with either global CR, which produces general recommendations suitable for the initial writing stage, or local CR, which produces specific recommendations more fitting for the final writing stages. We propose the task of paragraph-level CR as a middle ground between the two approaches, where the paragraph's topic sentence is taken as input and recommendations for citing within the paragraph are produced at the output. We propose a model for this task, fine-tune it using the quadruplet loss on the dataset of ACL papers, and show improvements over the baselines.
In legal document writing, one of the key elements is properly citing the case laws and other sources to substantiate claims and arguments. Understanding the legal domain and identifying appropriate citation context or cite-worthy sentences are challenging tasks that demand expensive manual annotation. The presence of jargon, language semantics, and high domain specificity makes legal language complex, making any associated legal task hard for automation. The current work focuses on the problem of citation-worthiness identification. It is designed as the initial step in today's citation recommendation systems to lighten the burden of extracting an adequate set of citation contexts. To accomplish this, we introduce a labeled dataset of 178M sentences for citation-worthiness detection in the legal domain from the Caselaw Access Project (CAP). The performance of various deep learning models was examined on this novel dataset. The domain-specific pre-trained model tends to outperform other models, with an 88% F1-score for the citation-worthiness detection task.
Large-scale data sets on scholarly publications are the basis for a variety of bibliometric analyses and natural language processing (NLP) applications. Especially data sets derived from publication's full-text have recently gained attention. While several such data sets already exist, we see key shortcomings in terms of their domain and time coverage, citation network completeness, and representation of full-text content. To address these points, we propose a new version of the data set unarXive. We base our data processing pipeline and output format on two existing data sets, and improve on each of them. Our resulting data set comprises 1.9 M publications spanning multiple disciplines and 32 years. It furthermore has a more complete citation network than its predecessors and retains a richer representation of document structure as well as non-textual publication content such as mathematical notation. In addition to the data set, we provide ready-to-use training/test data for citation recommendation and IMRaD classification. All data and source code is publicly available at https://github.com/IllDepence/unarXive.
Proper citation is of great importance in academic writing for it enables knowledge accumulation and maintains academic integrity. However, citing properly is not an easy task. For published scientific entities, the ever-growing academic publications and over-familiarity of terms easily lead to missing citations. To deal with this situation, we design a special method Citation Recommendation for Published Scientific Entity (CRPSE) based on the cooccurrences between published scientific entities and in-text citations in the same sentences from previous researchers. Experimental outcomes show the effectiveness of our method in recommending the source papers for published scientific entities. We further conduct a statistical analysis on missing citations among papers published in prestigious computer science conferences in 2020. In the 12,278 papers collected, 475 published scientific entities of computer science and mathematics are found to have missing citations. Many entities mentioned without citations are found to be well-accepted research results. On a median basis, the papers proposing these published scientific entities with missing citations were published 8 years ago, which can be considered the time frame for a published scientific entity to develop into a well-accepted concept. For published scientific entities, we appeal for accurate and full citation of their source papers as required by academic standards.
Estimating the similarity between two legal case documents is an important and challenging problem, having various downstream applications such as prior-case retrieval and citation recommendation. There are two broad approaches for the task -- citation network-based and text-based. Prior citation network-based approaches consider citations only to prior-cases (also called precedents) (PCNet). This approach misses important signals inherent in Statutes (written laws of a jurisdiction). In this work, we propose Hier-SPCNet that augments PCNet with a heterogeneous network of Statutes. We incorporate domain knowledge for legal document similarity into Hier-SPCNet, thereby obtaining state-of-the-art results for network-based legal document similarity. Both textual and network similarity provide important signals for legal case similarity; but till now, only trivial attempts have been made to unify the two signals. In this work, we apply several methods for combining textual and network information for estimating legal case similarity. We perform extensive experiments over legal case documents from the Indian judiciary, where the gold standard similarity between document-pairs is judged by law experts from two reputed Law institutes in India. Our experiments establish that our proposed network-based methods significantly improve the correlation with domain experts' opinion when compared to the existing methods for network-based legal document similarity. Our best-performing combination method (that combines network-based and text-based similarity) improves the correlation with domain experts' opinion by 11.8% over the best text-based method and 20.6\% over the best network-based method. We also establish that our best-performing method can be used to recommend / retrieve citable and similar cases for a source (query) case, which are well appreciated by legal experts.
Recently introduced transformer-based article encoders (TAEs) designed to produce similar vector representations for mutually related scientific articles have demonstrated strong performance on benchmark datasets for scientific article recommendation. However, the existing benchmark datasets are predominantly focused on single domains and, in some cases, contain easy negatives in small candidate pools. Evaluating representations on such benchmarks might obscure the realistic performance of TAEs in setups with thousands of articles in candidate pools. In this work, we evaluate TAEs on large benchmarks with more challenging candidate pools. We compare the performance of TAEs with a lexical retrieval baseline model BM25 on the task of citation recommendation, where the model produces a list of recommendations for citing in a given input article. We find out that BM25 is still very competitive with the state-of-the-art neural retrievers, a finding which is surprising given the strong performance of TAEs on small benchmarks. As a remedy for the limitations of the existing benchmarks, we propose a new benchmark dataset for evaluating scientific article representations: Multi-Domain Citation Recommendation dataset (MDCR), which covers different scientific fields and contains challenging candidate pools.
Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia: claims that are likely to be challenged need to be backed by citations. There are millions of articles available online and thousands of new articles are released each month. For this reason, finding relevant sources is a difficult task: many claims do not have any references that support them. Furthermore, even existing citations might not support a given claim or become obsolete once the original source is updated or deleted. Hence, maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia references is an important challenge and there is a pressing need for better tools to assist humans in this effort. Here, we show that the process of improving references can be tackled with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims, and subsequently recommend better ones from the web. We train this model on existing Wikipedia references, therefore learning from the contributions and combined wisdom of thousands of Wikipedia editors. Using crowd-sourcing, we observe that for the top 10% most likely citations to be tagged as unverifiable by our system, humans prefer our system's suggested alternatives compared to the originally cited reference 70% of the time. To validate the applicability of our system, we built a demo to engage with the English-speaking Wikipedia community and find that Side's first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims according to Side. Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia. More generally, we hope that our work can be used to assist fact checking efforts and increase the general trustworthiness of information online.