Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

LCFO: Long Context and Long Form Output Dataset and Benchmarking

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 2412.08268 v3 pith:E5JP5TX2 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationlongexpansionhumanlcfosummariessummaryframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents the Long Context and Form Output (LCFO) benchmark, a novel evaluation framework for assessing gradual summarization and summary expansion capabilities across diverse domains. LCFO consists of long input documents (5k words average length), each of which comes with three summaries of different lengths (20%, 10%, and 5% of the input text), as well as approximately 15 questions and answers (QA) related to the input content. Notably, LCFO also provides alignments between specific QA pairs and corresponding summaries in 7 domains. The primary motivation behind providing summaries of different lengths is to establish a controllable framework for generating long texts from shorter inputs, i.e. summary expansion. To establish an evaluation metric framework for summarization and summary expansion, we provide human evaluation scores for human-generated outputs, as well as results from various state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs). GPT-4o-mini achieves best human scores among automatic systems in both summarization and summary expansion tasks (~ +10% and +20%, respectively). It even surpasses human output quality in the case of short summaries (~ +7%). Overall automatic metrics achieve low correlations with human evaluation scores (~ 0.4) but moderate correlation on specific evaluation aspects such as fluency and attribution (~ 0.6).

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. LIFEBench: Evaluating Length Instruction Following in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LIFEBench's evaluation of 26 LLMs shows most follow short length instructions but degrade sharply beyond a few hundred words, and none reliably hit vendor-claimed maximum output lengths.

Pith tools