arXiv subjects

Florian Boudin

Publications and source records attributed to Florian Boudin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Encoded but Not Routed: Explaining the Table-Chart Gap in Scientific Claim Verification

Multimodal LLMs are increasingly used to assist scientific peer review, where a core requirement is verifying whether claims in a paper are supported by its evidence. Prior work has shown that models perform substantially better at this task when the evidence is a table than when it is a chart of the same underlying data. This raises the question of whether models fail to extract information from charts, or do they extract it but fail to use it when forming their prediction? We study this question through layer-wise linear probing and attention analysis on three open-weight VLMs over table and chart evidence, representing the same underlying data. We find consistent evidence for the latter. Chart information is encoded in the models' intermediate representations but does not reach the prediction position, a gap that is absent for tables and holds across all conditions tested. Attention analysis further reveals that this disconnect takes two architecturally distinct forms across model families. These findings reframe the table-chart gap as a failure of how encoded visual information is routed at prediction time, rather than a failure of encoding itself.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

EarlySciRev: A Dataset of Early-Stage Scientific Revisions Extracted from LaTeX Writing Traces

Scientific writing is an iterative process that generates rich revision traces, yet publicly available resources typically expose only final or near-final versions of papers. This limits empirical study of revision behaviour and evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for scientific writing. We introduce EarlySciRev, a dataset of early-stage scientific text revisions automatically extracted from arXiv LaTeX source files. Our key observation is that commented-out text in LaTeX often preserves discarded or alternative formulations written by the authors themselves. By aligning commented segments with nearby final text, we extract paragraph-level candidate revision pairs and apply LLM-based filtering to retain genuine revisions. Starting from 1.28M candidate pairs, our pipeline yields 578k validated revision pairs, grounded in authentic early drafting traces. We additionally provide a human-annotated benchmark for revision detection. EarlySciRev complements existing resources focused on late-stage revisions or synthetic rewrites and supports research on scientific writing dynamics, revision modelling, and LLM-assisted editing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating the Homogeneity of Keyphrase Prediction Models

Keyphrases which are useful in several NLP and IR applications are either extracted from text or predicted by generative models. Contrarily to keyphrase extraction approaches, keyphrase generation models can predict keyphrases that do not appear in a document's text called `absent keyphrases`. This ability means that keyphrase generation models can associate a document to a notion that is not explicitly mentioned in its text. Intuitively, this suggests that for two documents treating the same subjects, a keyphrase generation model is more likely to be homogeneous in their indexing i.e. predict the same keyphrase for both documents, regardless of those keyphrases appearing in their respective text or not; something a keyphrase extraction model would fail to do. Yet, homogeneity of keyphrase prediction models is not covered by current benchmarks. In this work, we introduce a method to evaluate the homogeneity of keyphrase prediction models and study if absent keyphrase generation capabilities actually help the model to be more homogeneous. To our surprise, we show that keyphrase extraction methods are competitive with generative models, and that the ability to generate absent keyphrases can actually have a negative impact on homogeneity. Our data, code and prompts are available on huggingface and github.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SciClaimEval: Cross-modal Claim Verification in Scientific Papers

We present SciClaimEval, a new scientific dataset for the claim verification task. Unlike existing resources, SciClaimEval features authentic claims, including refuted ones, directly extracted from published papers. To create refuted claims, we introduce a novel approach that modifies the supporting evidence (figures and tables), rather than altering the claims or relying on large language models (LLMs) to fabricate contradictions. The dataset provides cross-modal evidence with diverse representations: figures are available as images, while tables are provided in multiple formats, including images, LaTeX source, HTML, and JSON. SciClaimEval contains 1,664 annotated samples from 180 papers across three domains, machine learning, natural language processing, and medicine, validated through expert annotation. We benchmark 11 multimodal foundation models, both open-source and proprietary, across the dataset. Results show that figure-based verification remains particularly challenging for all models, as a substantial performance gap remains between the best system and human baseline.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FC-CONAN: An Exhaustively Paired Dataset for Robust Evaluation of Retrieval Systems

Hate speech (HS) is a critical issue in online discourse, and one promising strategy to counter it is through the use of counter-narratives (CNs). Datasets linking HS with CNs are essential for advancing counterspeech research. However, even flagship resources like CONAN (Chung et al., 2019) annotate only a sparse subset of all possible HS-CN pairs, limiting evaluation. We introduce FC-CONAN (Fully Connected CONAN), the first dataset created by exhaustively considering all combinations of 45 English HS messages and 129 CNs. A two-stage annotation process involving nine annotators and four validators produces four partitions-Diamond, Gold, Silver, and Bronze-that balance reliability and scale. None of the labeled pairs overlap with CONAN, uncovering hundreds of previously unlabelled positives. FC-CONAN enables more faithful evaluation of counterspeech retrieval systems and facilitates detailed error analysis. The dataset is publicly available.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Format Matters: The Robustness of Multimodal LLMs in Reviewing Evidence from Tables and Charts

With the growing number of submitted scientific papers, there is an increasing demand for systems that can assist reviewers in evaluating research claims. Experimental results are a core component of scientific work, often presented in varying formats such as tables or charts. Understanding how robust current multimodal large language models (multimodal LLMs) are at verifying scientific claims across different evidence formats remains an important and underexplored challenge. In this paper, we design and conduct a series of experiments to assess the ability of multimodal LLMs to verify scientific claims using both tables and charts as evidence. To enable this evaluation, we adapt two existing datasets of scientific papers by incorporating annotations and structures necessary for a multimodal claim verification task. Using this adapted dataset, we evaluate 12 multimodal LLMs and find that current models perform better with table-based evidence while struggling with chart-based evidence. We further conduct human evaluations and observe that humans maintain strong performance across both formats, unlike the models. Our analysis also reveals that smaller multimodal LLMs (under 8B) show weak correlation in performance between table-based and chart-based tasks, indicating limited cross-modal generalization. These findings highlight a critical gap in current models' multimodal reasoning capabilities. We suggest that future multimodal LLMs should place greater emphasis on improving chart understanding to better support scientific claim verification.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Repurposing Annotation Guidelines to Instruct LLM Annotators: A Case Study

This study investigates how existing annotation guidelines can be repurposed to instruct large language model (LLM) annotators for text annotation tasks. Traditional guidelines are written for human annotators who internalize training, while LLMs require explicit, structured instructions. We propose a moderation-oriented guideline repurposing method that transforms guidelines into clear directives for LLMs through an LLM moderation process. Using the NCBI Disease Corpus as a case study, our experiments show that repurposed guidelines can effectively guide LLM annotators, while revealing several practical challenges. The results highlight the potential of this workflow to support scalable and cost-effective refinement of annotation guidelines and automated annotation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

An Analysis of Datasets, Metrics and Models in Keyphrase Generation

Keyphrase generation refers to the task of producing a set of words or phrases that summarises the content of a document. Continuous efforts have been dedicated to this task over the past few years, spreading across multiple lines of research, such as model architectures, data resources, and use-case scenarios. Yet, the current state of keyphrase generation remains unknown as there has been no attempt to review and analyse previous work. In this paper, we bridge this gap by presenting an analysis of over 50 research papers on keyphrase generation, offering a comprehensive overview of recent progress, limitations, and open challenges. Our findings highlight several critical issues in current evaluation practices, such as the concerning similarity among commonly-used benchmark datasets and inconsistencies in metric calculations leading to overestimated performances. Additionally, we address the limited availability of pre-trained models by releasing a strong PLM-based model for keyphrase generation as an effort to facilitate future research.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Table-Text Alignment: Explaining Claim Verification Against Tables in Scientific Papers

Scientific claim verification against tables typically requires predicting whether a claim is supported or refuted given a table. However, we argue that predicting the final label alone is insufficient: it reveals little about the model's reasoning and offers limited interpretability. To address this, we reframe table-text alignment as an explanation task, requiring models to identify the table cells essential for claim verification. We build a new dataset by extending the SciTab benchmark with human-annotated cell-level rationales. Annotators verify the claim label and highlight the minimal set of cells needed to support their decision. After the annotation process, we utilize the collected information and propose a taxonomy for handling ambiguous cases. Our experiments show that (i) incorporating table alignment information improves claim verification performance, and (ii) most LLMs, while often predicting correct labels, fail to recover human-aligned rationales, suggesting that their predictions do not stem from faithful reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

No Stupid Questions: An Analysis of Question Query Generation for Citation Recommendation

Existing techniques for citation recommendation are constrained by their adherence to article contents and metadata. We leverage GPT-4o-mini's latent expertise as an inquisitive assistant by instructing it to ask questions which, when answered, could expose new insights about an excerpt from a scientific article. We evaluate the utility of these questions as retrieval queries, measuring their effectiveness in retrieving and ranking masked target documents. In some cases, generated questions ended up being better queries than extractive keyword queries generated by the same model. We additionally propose MMR-RBO, a variation of Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) using Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) to identify which questions will perform competitively with the keyword baseline. As all question queries yield unique result sets, we contend that there are no stupid questions.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Identifying Reliable Evaluation Metrics for Scientific Text Revision

Evaluating text revision in scientific writing remains a challenge, as traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements. In this work, we analyse and identify the limitations of these metrics and explore alternative evaluation methods that better align with human judgments. We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions. Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains. Additionally, we examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches, analysing their ability to assess revisions with and without a gold reference. Our results show that LLMs effectively assess instruction-following but struggle with correctness, while domain-specific metrics provide complementary insights. We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Automatically Suggesting Diverse Example Sentences for L2 Japanese Learners Using Pre-Trained Language Models

Providing example sentences that are diverse and aligned with learners' proficiency levels is essential for fostering effective language acquisition. This study examines the use of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to produce example sentences targeting L2 Japanese learners. We utilize PLMs in two ways: as quality scoring components in a retrieval system that draws from a newly curated corpus of Japanese sentences, and as direct sentence generators using zero-shot learning. We evaluate the quality of sentences by considering multiple aspects such as difficulty, diversity, and naturalness, with a panel of raters consisting of learners of Japanese, native speakers -- and GPT-4. Our findings suggest that there is inherent disagreement among participants on the ratings of sentence qualities, except for difficulty. Despite that, the retrieval approach was preferred by all evaluators, especially for beginner and advanced target proficiency, while the generative approaches received lower scores on average. Even so, our experiments highlight the potential for using PLMs to enhance the adaptability of sentence suggestion systems and therefore improve the language learning journey.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Preface to the Special Issue of the TAL Journal on Scholarly Document Processing

The rapid growth of scholarly literature makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep up with new knowledge. Automated tools are now more essential than ever to help navigate and interpret this vast body of information. Scientific papers pose unique difficulties, with their complex language, specialized terminology, and diverse formats, requiring advanced methods to extract reliable and actionable insights. Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities, enabling tasks such as literature reviews, writing assistance, and interactive exploration of research. This special issue of the TAL journal highlights research addressing these challenges and, more broadly, research on natural language processing and information retrieval for scholarly and scientific documents.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Reassessing Extractive QA Datasets at Scale: LLM-as-a-Judge and In-Depth Analyses

Extractive QA tasks are commonly evaluated using Exact Match (EM) and F1-score, but these metrics often fail to reflect true model performance. Recent studies have proposed using large language models (LLMs) as judges (LLM-as-a-judge), yet they often lack comprehensive evaluation across datasets and overlook key factors such as sensitivity to answer types, prompt variations, and self-preference bias. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of LLM-as-a-judge across four extractive QA datasets and various prompt variations, assessing multiple LLM families in both answering and judging roles. Our results show that LLM-as-a-judge judgments correlate much more strongly with human evaluations than EM (0.22) and F1 (0.40), achieving correlations up to 0.85 with open-source models. Further analysis reveals that LLM-as-a-judge performs particularly well on number-related answers but faces challenges with more complex types, such as job titles. Contrary to findings in other NLP tasks, we observe no self-preference bias, even when the same model serves as both QA model and judge. Finally, we find that prompt phrasing has minimal impact, and zero-shot, context-free judging often yields the best evaluation performance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ParaRev: Building a dataset for Scientific Paragraph Revision annotated with revision instruction

Revision is a crucial step in scientific writing, where authors refine their work to improve clarity, structure, and academic quality. Existing approaches to automated writing assistance often focus on sentence-level revisions, which fail to capture the broader context needed for effective modification. In this paper, we explore the impact of shifting from sentence-level to paragraph-level scope for the task of scientific text revision. The paragraph level definition of the task allows for more meaningful changes, and is guided by detailed revision instructions rather than general ones. To support this task, we introduce ParaRev, the first dataset of revised scientific paragraphs with an evaluation subset manually annotated with revision instructions. Our experiments demonstrate that using detailed instructions significantly improves the quality of automated revisions compared to general approaches, no matter the model or the metric considered.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

ACL-rlg: A Dataset for Reading List Generation

Familiarizing oneself with a new scientific field and its existing literature can be daunting due to the large amount of available articles. Curated lists of academic references, or reading lists, compiled by experts, offer a structured way to gain a comprehensive overview of a domain or a specific scientific challenge. In this work, we introduce ACL-rlg, the largest open expert-annotated reading list dataset. We also provide multiple baselines for evaluating reading list generation and formally define it as a retrieval task. Our qualitative study highlights the fact that traditional scholarly search engines and indexing methods perform poorly on this task, and GPT-4o, despite showing better results, exhibits signs of potential data contamination.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Self-Compositional Data Augmentation for Scientific Keyphrase Generation

State-of-the-art models for keyphrase generation require large amounts of training data to achieve good performance. However, obtaining keyphrase-labeled documents can be challenging and costly. To address this issue, we present a self-compositional data augmentation method. More specifically, we measure the relatedness of training documents based on their shared keyphrases, and combine similar documents to generate synthetic samples. The advantage of our method lies in its ability to create additional training samples that keep domain coherence, without relying on external data or resources. Our results on multiple datasets spanning three different domains, demonstrate that our method consistently improves keyphrase generation. A qualitative analysis of the generated keyphrases for the Computer Science domain confirms this improvement towards their representativity property.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Keyphrase Generation using Citation Contexts

Adapting keyphrase generation models to new domains typically involves few-shot fine-tuning with in-domain labeled data. However, annotating documents with keyphrases is often prohibitively expensive and impractical, requiring expert annotators. This paper presents silk, an unsupervised method designed to address this issue by extracting silver-standard keyphrases from citation contexts to create synthetic labeled data for domain adaptation. Extensive experiments across three distinct domains demonstrate that our method yields high-quality synthetic samples, resulting in significant and consistent improvements in in-domain performance over strong baselines.

cs.CL↗