Pith. sign in

REVIEW 12 cited by

Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models

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 2402.14207 v2 pith:7LG7AFXT submitted 2024-02-22 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords articlestopicgroundedmodelsoutlinepre-writingstagestorm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We study how to apply large language models to write grounded and organized long-form articles from scratch, with comparable breadth and depth to Wikipedia pages. This underexplored problem poses new challenges at the pre-writing stage, including how to research the topic and prepare an outline prior to writing. We propose STORM, a writing system for the Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking. STORM models the pre-writing stage by (1) discovering diverse perspectives in researching the given topic, (2) simulating conversations where writers carrying different perspectives pose questions to a topic expert grounded on trusted Internet sources, (3) curating the collected information to create an outline. For evaluation, we curate FreshWiki, a dataset of recent high-quality Wikipedia articles, and formulate outline assessments to evaluate the pre-writing stage. We further gather feedback from experienced Wikipedia editors. Compared to articles generated by an outline-driven retrieval-augmented baseline, more of STORM's articles are deemed to be organized (by a 25% absolute increase) and broad in coverage (by 10%). The expert feedback also helps identify new challenges for generating grounded long articles, such as source bias transfer and over-association of unrelated facts.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

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

  1. Characterizing Deep Research: A Benchmark and Formal Definition

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Deep research is characterized by high search and reasoning intensity; the new LiveDRBench measures claim-level precision and recall, where the best current model scores 0.55 F1.

  2. WETBench: A Benchmark for Detecting Task-Specific Machine-Generated Text on Wikipedia

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WETBench shows that existing machine-generated text detectors, particularly zero-shot methods, underperform on task-specific Wikipedia editing scenarios, with supervised detectors averaging 78% accuracy and zero-shot ...

  3. Benchmarking Deep Search over Heterogeneous Enterprise Data

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HERB is a new heterogeneous enterprise RAG benchmark where even the best agentic RAG system reaches only a 32.96 average score, pointing to retrieval as the limiting factor.

  4. Spatial Balancing: Designing an LLM-Powered Spatial Externalization Interface for Iterative Science Communication Writing

    cs.HC 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    SpatialBalancing is a system that turns revision trade-offs into spatial navigation so writers can iteratively balance scientific exposition and narrative engagement with LLM assistance.

  5. Interaction as Intelligence: Deep Research With Human-AI Partnership

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop deep research system with transparent, interruptible interaction is claimed to outperform commercial baselines, but the evidence is weakened by small samples and biased instructions.

  6. AI-Generated Lecture Slides for Improving Slide Element Detection and Retrieval

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Synthetic lecture slides generated by an LLM pipeline improve few-shot slide element detection and text-based retrieval when used as pre-training data.

  7. SciSage: A Multi-Agent Framework for High-Quality Scientific Survey Generation

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    SciSage, a multi-agent reflection-based framework, is reported to outperform previous LLM survey generators on coherence and citation F1, while a new benchmark, SurveyScope, enables standardized evaluation.

  8. MiniCPM4: Ultra-Efficient LLMs on End Devices

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MiniCPM4-8B reportedly matches Qwen3-8B on standard benchmarks while using about 22% of the training tokens, and achieves large long-context speedups on edge devices.

  9. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.

  10. Truth Sleuth and Trend Bender: AI Agents to fact-check YouTube videos and influence opinions

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A prototype two-agent system using RAG fact-checking and self-evaluating comment generation can label claims and post comments on YouTube, but its headline accuracy rests on filtered data and a mismatched comparison.

  11. Data Diversification Methods In Alignment Enhance Math Performance In LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    DTS, which generates diverse solution strategies before writing solutions, improves GSM8K by 7.1 points and MATH by 4.2 points over an untuned base model at 1.03x baseline compute.

  12. Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLM-powered deep research agents into static versus dynamic workflows and single versus multi agent architectures, and reviews their benchmarks and open challenges.

Pith tools