Daily Papers

The public availability of collections containing user preferences is of vital importance for performing offline evaluations in the field of recommender systems. However, the number of rating datasets is limited because of the costs required for their creation and the fear of violating the privacy of the users by sharing them. For this reason, numerous research attempts investigated the creation of synthetic collections of ratings using generative approaches. Nevertheless, these datasets are usually not reliable enough for conducting an evaluation campaign. In this paper, we propose a method for creating synthetic datasets with a configurable number of users that mimic the characteristics of already existing ones. We empirically validated the proposed approach by exploiting the synthetic datasets for evaluating different recommenders and by comparing the results with the ones obtained using real datasets.

The detailed clinical records drafted by doctors after each patient's visit are crucial for medical practitioners and researchers. Automating the creation of these notes with language models can reduce the workload of doctors. However, training such models can be difficult due to the limited public availability of conversations between patients and doctors. In this paper, we introduce NoteChat, a cooperative multi-agent framework leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating synthetic doctor-patient conversations conditioned on clinical notes. NoteChat consists of Planning, Roleplay, and Polish modules. We provide a comprehensive automatic and human evaluation of NoteChat, comparing it with state-of-the-art models, including OpenAI's ChatGPT and GPT-4. Results demonstrate that NoteChat facilitates high-quality synthetic doctor-patient conversations, underscoring the untapped potential of LLMs in healthcare. This work represents the first instance of multiple LLMs cooperating to complete a doctor-patient conversation conditioned on clinical notes, offering promising avenues for the intersection of AI and healthcare

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to semi-automate some process mining (PM) analyses. While commercial models are already adequate for many analytics tasks, the competitive level of open-source LLMs in PM tasks is unknown. In this paper, we propose PM-LLM-Benchmark, the first comprehensive benchmark for PM focusing on domain knowledge (process-mining-specific and process-specific) and on different implementation strategies. We focus also on the challenges in creating such a benchmark, related to the public availability of the data and on evaluation biases by the LLMs. Overall, we observe that most of the considered LLMs can perform some process mining tasks at a satisfactory level, but tiny models that would run on edge devices are still inadequate. We also conclude that while the proposed benchmark is useful for identifying LLMs that are adequate for process mining tasks, further research is needed to overcome the evaluation biases and perform a more thorough ranking of the competitive LLMs.

The training data for many Large Language Models (LLMs) is contaminated with test data. This means that public benchmarks used to assess LLMs are compromised, suggesting a performance gap between benchmark scores and actual capabilities. Ideally, a private holdout set could be used to accurately verify scores. Unfortunately, such datasets do not exist for most benchmarks, and post-hoc construction of sufficiently similar datasets is non-trivial. To address these issues, we introduce a systematic methodology for (i) retrospectively constructing a holdout dataset for a target dataset, (ii) demonstrating the statistical indistinguishability of this retro-holdout dataset, and (iii) comparing LLMs on the two datasets to quantify the performance gap due to the dataset's public availability. Applying these methods to TruthfulQA, we construct and release Retro-Misconceptions, on which we evaluate twenty LLMs and find that some have inflated scores by as much as 16 percentage points. Our results demonstrate that public benchmark scores do not always accurately assess model properties, and underscore the importance of improved data practices in the field.

Accurate document layout analysis is a key requirement for high-quality PDF document conversion. With the recent availability of public, large ground-truth datasets such as PubLayNet and DocBank, deep-learning models have proven to be very effective at layout detection and segmentation. While these datasets are of adequate size to train such models, they severely lack in layout variability since they are sourced from scientific article repositories such as PubMed and arXiv only. Consequently, the accuracy of the layout segmentation drops significantly when these models are applied on more challenging and diverse layouts. In this paper, we present DocLayNet, a new, publicly available, document-layout annotation dataset in COCO format. It contains 80863 manually annotated pages from diverse data sources to represent a wide variability in layouts. For each PDF page, the layout annotations provide labelled bounding-boxes with a choice of 11 distinct classes. DocLayNet also provides a subset of double- and triple-annotated pages to determine the inter-annotator agreement. In multiple experiments, we provide baseline accuracy scores (in mAP) for a set of popular object detection models. We also demonstrate that these models fall approximately 10\% behind the inter-annotator agreement. Furthermore, we provide evidence that DocLayNet is of sufficient size. Lastly, we compare models trained on PubLayNet, DocBank and DocLayNet, showing that layout predictions of the DocLayNet-trained models are more robust and thus the preferred choice for general-purpose document-layout analysis.

One of the biggest challenges that prohibit the use of many current NLP methods in clinical settings is the availability of public datasets. In this work, we present MeDAL, a large medical text dataset curated for abbreviation disambiguation, designed for natural language understanding pre-training in the medical domain. We pre-trained several models of common architectures on this dataset and empirically showed that such pre-training leads to improved performance and convergence speed when fine-tuning on downstream medical tasks.

To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage or mandate data sharing within and across disciplines, with varying degrees of success. Academic journals in ecology and evolution have adopted several types of public data archiving policies requiring authors to make data underlying scholarly manuscripts freely available. Yet anecdotes from the community and studies evaluating data availability suggest that these policies have not obtained the desired effects, both in terms of quantity and quality of available datasets. We conducted a qualitative, interview-based study with journal editorial staff and other stakeholders in the academic publishing process to examine how journals enforce data archiving policies. We specifically sought to establish who editors and other stakeholders perceive as responsible for ensuring data completeness and quality in the peer review process. Our analysis revealed little consensus with regard to how data archiving policies should be enforced and who should hold authors accountable for dataset submissions. Themes in interviewee responses included hopefulness that reviewers would take the initiative to review datasets and trust in authors to ensure the completeness and quality of their datasets. We highlight problematic aspects of these thematic responses and offer potential starting points for improvement of the public data archiving process.

Computer vision-based parking lot management methods have been extensively researched upon owing to their flexibility and cost-effectiveness. To evaluate such methods authors often employ publicly available parking lot image datasets. In this study, we surveyed and compared robust publicly available image datasets specifically crafted to test computer vision-based methods for parking lot management approaches and consequently present a systematic and comprehensive review of existing works that employ such datasets. The literature review identified relevant gaps that require further research, such as the requirement of dataset-independent approaches and methods suitable for autonomous detection of position of parking spaces. In addition, we have noticed that several important factors such as the presence of the same cars across consecutive images, have been neglected in most studies, thereby rendering unrealistic assessment protocols. Furthermore, the analysis of the datasets also revealed that certain features that should be present when developing new benchmarks, such as the availability of video sequences and images taken in more diverse conditions, including nighttime and snow, have not been incorporated.

The availability of large public datasets and the increased amount of computing power have shifted the interest of the medical community to high-performance algorithms. However, little attention is paid to the quality of the data and their annotations. High performance on benchmark datasets may be reported without considering possible shortcuts or artifacts in the data, besides, models are not tested on subpopulation groups. With this work, we aim to raise awareness about shortcuts problems. We validate previous findings, and present a case study on chest X-rays using two publicly available datasets. We share annotations for a subset of pneumothorax images with drains. We conclude with general recommendations for medical image classification.