Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

CiteBench: A benchmark for Scientific Citation Text Generation

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

arxiv 2212.09577 v3 pith:UCURQFLE submitted 2022-12-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords citationgenerationtexttaskcitebenchbenchmarkaddressbody
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Science progresses by building upon the prior body of knowledge documented in scientific publications. The acceleration of research makes it hard to stay up-to-date with the recent developments and to summarize the ever-growing body of prior work. To address this, the task of citation text generation aims to produce accurate textual summaries given a set of papers-to-cite and the citing paper context. Due to otherwise rare explicit anchoring of cited documents in the citing paper, citation text generation provides an excellent opportunity to study how humans aggregate and synthesize textual knowledge from sources. Yet, existing studies are based upon widely diverging task definitions, which makes it hard to study this task systematically. To address this challenge, we propose CiteBench: a benchmark for citation text generation that unifies multiple diverse datasets and enables standardized evaluation of citation text generation models across task designs and domains. Using the new benchmark, we investigate the performance of multiple strong baselines, test their transferability between the datasets, and deliver new insights into the task definition and evaluation to guide future research in citation text generation. We make the code for CiteBench publicly available at https://github.com/UKPLab/citebench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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 perc...

Pith tools