Daily Papers

Community health workers (CHWs) provide last-mile healthcare services but face challenges due to limited medical knowledge and training. This paper describes the design, deployment, and evaluation of ASHABot, an LLM-powered, experts-in-the-loop, WhatsApp-based chatbot to address the information needs of CHWs in India. Through interviews with CHWs and their supervisors and log analysis, we examine factors affecting their engagement with ASHABot, and ASHABot's role in addressing CHWs' informational needs. We found that ASHABot provided a private channel for CHWs to ask rudimentary and sensitive questions they hesitated to ask supervisors. CHWs trusted the information they received on ASHABot and treated it as an authoritative resource. CHWs' supervisors expanded their knowledge by contributing answers to questions ASHABot failed to answer, but were concerned about demands on their workload and increased accountability. We emphasize positioning LLMs as supplemental fallible resources within the community healthcare ecosystem, instead of as replacements for supervisor support.

We present NoticIA, a dataset consisting of 850 Spanish news articles featuring prominent clickbait headlines, each paired with high-quality, single-sentence generative summarizations written by humans. This task demands advanced text understanding and summarization abilities, challenging the models' capacity to infer and connect diverse pieces of information to meet the user's informational needs generated by the clickbait headline. We evaluate the Spanish text comprehension capabilities of a wide range of state-of-the-art large language models. Additionally, we use the dataset to train ClickbaitFighter, a task-specific model that achieves near-human performance in this task.

Academic survey writing, which distills vast literature into a coherent and insightful narrative, remains a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task. While recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically (a.k.a. LLM4Survey), their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark for thoroughly revealing their deficiencies. To fill the gap, we propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench, featuring (1) typical survey topics source from recent 11,343 arXiv papers and corresponding 4,947 high-quality surveys; (2) a multifaceted metric hierarchy that assesses the outline quality (e.g., coverage breadth, logical coherence), content quality (e.g., synthesis granularity, clarity of insights), and non-textual richness; and (3) a dual-mode evaluation protocol that includes content-based and quiz-based answerability tests, explicitly aligned with readers' informational needs. Results show SurveyBench effectively challenges existing LLM4Survey approaches (e.g., on average 21% lower than human in content-based evaluation).

In the midst of widespread misinformation and disinformation through social media and the proliferation of AI-generated texts, it has become increasingly difficult for people to validate and trust information they encounter. Many fact-checking approaches and tools have been developed, but they often lack appropriate explainability or granularity to be useful in various contexts. A text validation method that is easy to use, accessible, and can perform fine-grained evidence attribution has become crucial. More importantly, building user trust in such a method requires presenting the rationale behind each prediction, as research shows this significantly influences people's belief in automated systems. It is also paramount to localize and bring users' attention to the specific problematic content, instead of providing simple blanket labels. In this paper, we present ClaimVer, a human-centric framework tailored to meet users' informational and verification needs by generating rich annotations and thereby reducing cognitive load. Designed to deliver comprehensive evaluations of texts, it highlights each claim, verifies it against a trusted knowledge graph (KG), presents the evidence, and provides succinct, clear explanations for each claim prediction. Finally, our framework introduces an attribution score, enhancing applicability across a wide range of downstream tasks.

People increasingly search online for answers to their medical questions but the rate at which medical questions are asked online significantly exceeds the capacity of qualified people to answer them. This leaves many questions unanswered or inadequately answered. Many of these questions are not unique, and reliable identification of similar questions would enable more efficient and effective question answering schema. COVID-19 has only exacerbated this problem. Almost every government agency and healthcare organization has tried to meet the informational need of users by building online FAQs, but there is no way for people to ask their question and know if it is answered on one of these pages. While many research efforts have focused on the problem of general question similarity, these approaches do not generalize well to domains that require expert knowledge to determine semantic similarity, such as the medical domain. In this paper, we show how a double fine-tuning approach of pretraining a neural network on medical question-answer pairs followed by fine-tuning on medical question-question pairs is a particularly useful intermediate task for the ultimate goal of determining medical question similarity. While other pretraining tasks yield an accuracy below 78.7% on this task, our model achieves an accuracy of 82.6% with the same number of training examples, an accuracy of 80.0% with a much smaller training set, and an accuracy of 84.5% when the full corpus of medical question-answer data is used. We also describe a currently live system that uses the trained model to match user questions to COVID-related FAQs.