Daily Papers

Dense retrievers for open-domain question answering (ODQA) have been shown to achieve impressive performance by training on large datasets of question-passage pairs. In this work we ask whether this dependence on labeled data can be reduced via unsupervised pretraining that is geared towards ODQA. We show this is in fact possible, via a novel pretraining scheme designed for retrieval. Our "recurring span retrieval" approach uses recurring spans across passages in a document to create pseudo examples for contrastive learning. Our pretraining scheme directly controls for term overlap across pseudo queries and relevant passages, thus allowing to model both lexical and semantic relations between them. The resulting model, named Spider, performs surprisingly well without any labeled training examples on a wide range of ODQA datasets. Specifically, it significantly outperforms all other pretrained baselines in a zero-shot setting, and is competitive with BM25, a strong sparse baseline. Moreover, a hybrid retriever over Spider and BM25 improves over both, and is often competitive with DPR models, which are trained on tens of thousands of examples. Last, notable gains are observed when using Spider as an initialization for supervised training.

Attention within windows has been widely explored in vision transformers to balance the performance, computation complexity, and memory footprint. However, current models adopt a hand-crafted fixed-size window design, which restricts their capacity of modeling long-term dependencies and adapting to objects of different sizes. To address this drawback, we propose Varied-Size Window Attention (VSA) to learn adaptive window configurations from data. Specifically, based on the tokens within each default window, VSA employs a window regression module to predict the size and location of the target window, i.e., the attention area where the key and value tokens are sampled. By adopting VSA independently for each attention head, it can model long-term dependencies, capture rich context from diverse windows, and promote information exchange among overlapped windows. VSA is an easy-to-implement module that can replace the window attention in state-of-the-art representative models with minor modifications and negligible extra computational cost while improving their performance by a large margin, e.g., 1.1\% for Swin-T on ImageNet classification. In addition, the performance gain increases when using larger images for training and test. Experimental results on more downstream tasks, including object detection, instance segmentation, and semantic segmentation, further demonstrate the superiority of VSA over the vanilla window attention in dealing with objects of different sizes. The code will be released https://github.com/ViTAE-Transformer/ViTAE-VSA.

Implicit neural fields have made remarkable progress in reconstructing 3D surfaces from multiple images; however, they encounter challenges when it comes to separating individual objects within a scene. Previous work has attempted to tackle this problem by introducing a framework to train separate signed distance fields (SDFs) simultaneously for each of N objects and using a regularization term to prevent objects from overlapping. However, all of these methods require segmentation masks to be provided, which are not always readily available. We introduce our method, ObjectCarver, to tackle the problem of object separation from just click input in a single view. Given posed multi-view images and a set of user-input clicks to prompt segmentation of the individual objects, our method decomposes the scene into separate objects and reconstructs a high-quality 3D surface for each one. We introduce a loss function that prevents floaters and avoids inappropriate carving-out due to occlusion. In addition, we introduce a novel scene initialization method that significantly speeds up the process while preserving geometric details compared to previous approaches. Despite requiring neither ground truth masks nor monocular cues, our method outperforms baselines both qualitatively and quantitatively. In addition, we introduce a new benchmark dataset for evaluation.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.