Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing using Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07640v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:03:11 GMT
• Title: Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing using Language Models
• Authors: Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu and Lydia B. Chilton
• Abstract summary: We present a system for generating "sparks", sentences related to a scientific concept intended to inspire writers. We find that our sparks are more coherent and diverse than a competitive language model baseline, and approach a human-created gold standard.
• Score: 11.38723572165938
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large-scale language models are rapidly improving, performing well on a wide variety of tasks with little to no customization. In this work we investigate how language models can support science writing, a challenging writing task that is both open-ended and highly constrained. We present a system for generating "sparks", sentences related to a scientific concept intended to inspire writers. We find that our sparks are more coherent and diverse than a competitive language model baseline, and approach a human-created gold standard. In a study with 13 PhD students writing on topics of their own selection, we find three main use cases of sparks: aiding with crafting detailed sentences, providing interesting angles to engage readers, and demonstrating common reader perspectives. We also report on the various reasons sparks were considered unhelpful, and discuss how we might improve language models as writing support tools.

Related papers

• Inclusivity in Large Language Models: Personality Traits and Gender Bias in Scientific Abstracts [49.97673761305336]
  We evaluate three large language models (LLMs) for their alignment with human narrative styles and potential gender biases. Our findings indicate that, while these models generally produce text closely resembling human authored content, variations in stylistic features suggest significant gender biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T19:26:11Z)
• Visually Grounded Language Learning: a review of language games, datasets, tasks, and models [60.2604624857992]
  Many Vision+Language (V+L) tasks have been defined with the aim of creating models that can ground symbols in the visual modality. In this work, we provide a systematic literature review of several tasks and models proposed in the V+L field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-05T02:17:29Z)
• Neural Conversation Models and How to Rein Them in: A Survey of Failures and Fixes [17.489075240435348]
  Recent conditional language models are able to continue any kind of text source in an often seemingly fluent way. From a linguistic perspective, contributing to a conversation is high. Recent approaches try to tame the underlying language models at various intervention points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T12:07:45Z)
• Multilingual Multi-Figurative Language Detection [14.799109368073548]
  figurative language understanding is highly understudied in a multilingual setting. We introduce multilingual multi-figurative language modelling, and provide a benchmark for sentence-level figurative language detection. We develop a framework for figurative language detection based on template-based prompt learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T18:52:41Z)
• Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate [95.10641301155232]
  We present a complementary approach to improve language responses where multiple language model instances propose and debate their individual responses and reasoning processes over multiple rounds to arrive at a common final answer. Our findings indicate that this approach significantly enhances mathematical and strategic reasoning across a number of tasks. Our approach may be directly applied to existing black-box models and uses identical procedure and prompts for all tasks we investigate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:55:11Z)
• Studying writer-suggestion interaction: A qualitative study to understand writer interaction with aligned/misaligned next-phrase suggestion [3.068049762564199]
  We present an exploratory qualitative study to understand how writers interact with next-phrase suggestions. We conducted a study where amateur writers were asked to write two movie reviews each. We found writers interact with next-phrase suggestions in various complex ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T06:49:07Z)
• Testing the Ability of Language Models to Interpret Figurative Language [69.59943454934799]
  Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse. It remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. We introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T23:42:22Z)
• Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models [56.811278668446825]
  This paper explores the ability of language models to generate a coherent chain of thought. Experiments show that inducing a chain of thought via prompting can enable sufficiently large language models to better perform reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-28T02:33:07Z)
• CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities [92.79451009324268]
  We present CoAuthor, a dataset designed for revealing GPT-3's capabilities in assisting creative and argumentative writing. We demonstrate that CoAuthor can address questions about GPT-3's language, ideation, and collaboration capabilities. We discuss how this work may facilitate a more principled discussion around LMs' promises and pitfalls in relation to interaction design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-18T07:51:57Z)
• The Impact of Multiple Parallel Phrase Suggestions on Email Input and Composition Behaviour of Native and Non-Native English Writers [15.621144215664767]
  We build a text editor prototype with a neural language model (GPT-2), refined in a prestudy with 30 people. In an online study (N=156), people composed emails in four conditions (0/1/3/6 parallel suggestions) Our results reveal (1) benefits for ideation, and costs for efficiency, when suggesting multiple phrases; (2) that non-native speakers benefit more from more suggestions; and (3) further insights into behaviour patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-22T15:32:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.