REVIEW 2 cited by
A Survey of Pre-trained Language Models for Processing Scientific Text
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
read the original abstract
The number of Language Models (LMs) dedicated to processing scientific text is on the rise. Keeping pace with the rapid growth of scientific LMs (SciLMs) has become a daunting task for researchers. To date, no comprehensive surveys on SciLMs have been undertaken, leaving this issue unaddressed. Given the constant stream of new SciLMs, appraising the state-of-the-art and how they compare to each other remain largely unknown. This work fills that gap and provides a comprehensive review of SciLMs, including an extensive analysis of their effectiveness across different domains, tasks and datasets, and a discussion on the challenges that lie ahead.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
KeySI: An Interaction Framework for Tuning Text Embeddings Based on Human Feedback
Keyword-group feedback, translated into document-level pseudo-labels, can steer text embeddings to better separate user-defined concepts.
-
Table Understanding and (Multimodal) LLMs: A Cross-Domain Case Study on Scientific vs. Non-Scientific Data
A new benchmark, TableEval, with 3017 tables in five formats, shows LLMs are robust to table representation but perform worse on scientific tables, with the caveat that the domain gap is confounded by task difficulty.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.