Pith. sign in

Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review: A Benchmark

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Scientific literature review generation aims to extract and organize important information from an abundant collection of reference papers and produces corresponding reviews while lacking a clear and logical hierarchy. We observe that a high-quality catalogue-guided generation process can effectively alleviate this problem. Therefore, we present an atomic and challenging task named Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review as the first step for review generation, which aims to produce a hierarchical catalogue of a review paper given various references. We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews Dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.Our extensive analyses verify the high quality of our dataset and the effectiveness of our evaluation metrics. We further benchmark diverse experiments on state-of-the-art summarization models like BART and large language models like ChatGPT to evaluate their capabilities. We further discuss potential directions for this task to motivate future research.

fields

cs.CL 1

years

2024 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

representative citing papers

LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet?

cs.CL · 2024-12-15 · conditional · novelty 6.0

LLMs can draft plausible related-work sections when the task is decomposed into keyword-plus-embedding retrieval, attribution-verified reranking, and plan-based generation, but retrieval coverage remains below 10 percent of true references.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet? cs.CL · 2024-12-15 · conditional · none · ref 85 · internal anchor

    LLMs can draft plausible related-work sections when the task is decomposed into keyword-plus-embedding retrieval, attribution-verified reranking, and plan-based generation, but retrieval coverage remains below 10 percent of true references.