Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Has It All Been Solved? Open NLP Research Questions Not Solved by Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.12544 v2 pith:KNDI7VWB submitted 2023-05-21 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords researchllmsmanysolvedareasbeendirectionsidentify
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has enabled the deployment of many generative NLP applications. At the same time, it has also led to a misleading public discourse that ``it's all been solved.'' Not surprisingly, this has, in turn, made many NLP researchers -- especially those at the beginning of their careers -- worry about what NLP research area they should focus on. Has it all been solved, or what remaining questions can we work on regardless of LLMs? To address this question, this paper compiles NLP research directions rich for exploration. We identify fourteen different research areas encompassing 45 research directions that require new research and are not directly solvable by LLMs. While we identify many research areas, many others exist; we do not cover areas currently addressed by LLMs, but where LLMs lag behind in performance or those focused on LLM development. We welcome suggestions for other research directions to include: https://bit.ly/nlp-era-llm

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Review on Scientific Knowledge Extraction using Large Language Models in Biomedical Sciences

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A PRISMA-style review of LLM-based biomedical evidence synthesis concludes that heterogeneous evaluations and missing unified benchmarks block progress.

Pith tools