Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

PASS: Presentation Automation for Slide Generation and Speech

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read PASS is the first pipeline that both generates presentation slides from Word documents and delivers them through an AI-generated voice, scoring higher than prior methods on an LLM-judged quality metric.

desk verdict Competent slide-generation pipeline, but the oral-delivery half of the central claim is unevaluated and the LLM-based metric lacks human validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06497 v2 pith:SPA5FU4A submitted 2025-01-11 cs.CL cs.AI

Tushar Aggarwal , Aarohi Bhand This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords slidegenerationtext-to-speechLLMevaluationpresentationautomationdocument-to-slidespeechsynthesismultimodalmodelsSciDuet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PASS is a pipeline that takes ordinary Word documents and produces a finished presentation: slide titles, bullet content, and an AI-generated spoken narration synchronized with the slides. The paper claims this is the first system to fully automate both content generation and oral delivery, going beyond earlier work that focused on research papers or fixed slide counts. On the SciDuet benchmark, slides made with PASS using GPT-4o scored 8.96 ± 0.04 on an LLM-based evaluation of coherence, relevance, and redundancy, ahead of the D2S, GPT-Flat, GPT-COT, and GPT-Cons baselines. The point of the claim is that presentation creation can become a single automated step, saving preparation and rehearsal time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-module PASS architecture. The generation module chains five sub-modules — image/text extraction, title generation, content extraction, summarization, and image mapping — with prompts that allow 8-10 slides instead of a fixed number, which the paper argues is what prevents redundant content. The presentation module adds a presenter script generator and a Tacotron-2, SpeechBrain-based audio generator. Evaluation rests on an LLM judge (Llama-3-70B-Instruct) that scores slides on coherence, redundancy, and relevance, following the G-Eval approach.

What would settle it

Run a human evaluation on a sample of SciDuet outputs from GPT-PASS and the baselines, asking raters to score the same three dimensions; if human rankings differ from Llama-3-70B's or the absolute scores diverge sharply, the paper's central performance claim loses its support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PASS is the first pipeline to automate both slide generation and presentation delivery. The slide generation module extracts text and images from a document, generates up to 8-10 slide titles, pulls relevant content for each title, summarizes that content into concise points, and maps document images to matching slides when a multimodal model is used. The slide presentation module then writes a presenter script for each slide and converts it to speech with a Tacotron-2 based text-to-speech system. On the SciDuet test set of 81 ICML and NeurIPS papers, GPT-PASS (PASS with GPT-4o) achieved an average score of 8.96 ± 0.04 across coherence, redundancy, and relevance, the highest among the compared methods, with Qwen-PASS close behind. The paper also proposes an LLM-based evaluation metric using Llama-3-70B-Instruct to judge these three quality dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quality comparison assumes the AI judge's scores match what people would think of the slides, but the paper never tests that on slides.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, preparing a presentation from a Word document becomes a single automated step, with no separate slide design or narration recording.
  • General documents, not just structured research papers, can be converted into presentations.
  • Flexible slide counts (8-10) reduce the content repetition that fixed-slide systems suffer from.
  • Adding a spoken delivery module means the output is a complete, viewable presentation rather than just a deck.
  • The LLM-based evaluation metric could be reused to compare future slide-generation systems on the same three dimensions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural testable extension would be replacing the LLM judge with human raters on the same SciDuet samples to check whether the 8.96 average reflects perceived quality.
  • The same pipeline design could be applied to other input formats, such as PDFs or web pages, since the title-generation and content-extraction steps are not paper-specific.
  • The claimed firstness depends on how 'delivery' is scoped; a broader search including commercial slide tools would be needed to confirm that no prior system combines slide generation with an AI voiceover.
  • Integrating retrieval-augmented generation, as the paper lists for future work, could turn the one-way voiceover into an interactive presenter that answers audience questions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents PASS, a two-module pipeline that converts a document into a slide deck and an AI-generated voiceover. The slide-generation module extracts text and images, generates titles and content, summarizes the extracted content, and optionally maps images to slides; the slide-presentation module generates a presenter script and synthesizes speech using a Tacotron-2/SpeechBrain TTS system. On the SciDuet test set of 81 ICML/NeurIPS papers, the authors evaluate slide content with Llama-3-70B-Instruct as an LLM judge on coherence, redundancy, and relevance, reporting that GPT-PASS achieves the best average score of 8.96 ± 0.04, ahead of Qwen-PASS and several GPT-based baselines. The paper claims that PASS is the first system to fully automate both slide generation and oral delivery, and it presents the LLM-based evaluation metric as one of its contributions.

Significance. The intended contribution is practically useful: presentation preparation is a real bottleneck, and a modular pipeline with public code and evaluation against existing baselines is a reasonable starting point. The paper's strengths are its clear architecture, the flexible 8-10 slide design aimed at reducing redundancy, and the inclusion of comparisons against D2S and three GPT-based prompting baselines. If the delivery module and the LLM judge were validated, this would be a meaningful systems contribution. At present, however, the significance is conditional: the headline novelty claim rests on an unmeasured component, and the quantitative comparison rests on an unvalidated judge. The public GitHub repository is a plus for reproducibility.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, §3–§4, §6] The paper's central novelty claim in §1—'no prior work fully automates both the content generation and the delivery of a presentation using AI-generated voice'—is not supported by the evaluation that follows. Sections 3–4 evaluate only slide-text quality (coherence, redundancy, relevance) on SciDuet; the Presenter Script Generator and Audio Generation sub-modules described in §2.2 receive no evaluation. There is no measure of script quality, TTS intelligibility or naturalness, audio-slide synchronization, timing, or end-user assessment. The paper itself acknowledges this in §6: 'conducting human evaluations would be essential to validate the effectiveness of the slide presentation module, particularly in generating high-quality audio delivery for the slides.' As it stands, the delivery half of the central claim is a capability statement rather than a demonstrated result. Please either add an evaluation of the presentation module or narrow the claim to slide generation plus an implemented-but-unevaluated delivery architecture.
  2. [§3, contribution 4] All quantitative comparisons depend on Llama-3-70B-Instruct as the evaluator, and the paper presents the LLM-based evaluation metric itself as contribution 4. The only justification offered is a citation to G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023) for 'very high correlation with human evaluations'; no human ratings are collected for slide decks, and no correlation, agreement, or calibration statistics are reported in the slide domain. Because both the produced slides and the judge are LLM outputs, the reported improvements could partly reflect judge preferences for LLM-style text. Please validate the judge on a human-annotated sample of slides (e.g., Spearman correlation and item-level agreement), or explicitly discuss this as an unvalidated proxy and soften the corresponding claims.
  3. [Abstract, §1, §3] The abstract and introduction repeatedly frame PASS as handling 'general Word documents,' but the only evaluation is on SciDuet, a dataset of 81 ICML/NeurIPS research papers. No non-academic or non-paper document is used, so the claim of generality beyond research papers is untested. The authors should either evaluate on additional document types (e.g., business reports, technical memos) or restrict the claim to research-style documents.
  4. [§2.1, §3–§4, Table 1] Contribution 2 is a 'novel image mapping module,' but the experiments do not evaluate image mapping at all. Table 1 measures only text-level coherence, redundancy, and relevance of slide content; there is no accuracy, relevance, or usability metric for the mapped images, and the appendix does not describe an image-mapping evaluation. If image mapping is claimed as a contribution, it needs at least a basic evaluation; otherwise it should be presented as a designed component rather than a demonstrated contribution.
  5. [§4.4, §5] The conclusion states that PASS 'significantly outperforms' existing methods, but no statistical significance test is reported. The reported means differ by roughly 0.2–0.7 points with small standard errors, yet no pairwise test, confidence interval, or multiple-comparison correction is provided. Please report appropriate significance tests or replace 'significantly' with 'numerically higher' in the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] There are several copyediting issues: 'comprises of' should be 'comprises' or 'consists of,' 'upto' should be 'up to,' and 'multimodel' is used where 'multimodal' is meant.
  2. [§3] The sentence 'as used by (Liu et al., 2023) which has a very high correlation with human evaluations' is grammatically awkward; consider rephrasing to make clear that the cited high correlation comes from G-Eval's general NLG experiments, not from slide evaluation.
  3. [§3] The evaluation section does not state how many slide decks were generated per document or whether scores are averaged over slides or over decks; please clarify the unit of analysis.
  4. [References] The Qwen et al. reference contains a stray ':' among the author names; please fix the formatting.
  5. [Appendix, Table 2] Table 2 presents a single-slide content comparison without explaining how that example was selected; a sentence on the selection criterion would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: PASS's quality claims rest on an external LLM judge applied uniformly to all systems; the unevaluated delivery module is a validity gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than formal. The central quality result (GPT-PASS average 8.96) is produced by a Llama-3-70B-Instruct judge scoring all methods with the same prompt; the judge is external to PASS, is not fitted to PASS outputs, and is not defined in terms of the claimed outcome. The metric is explicitly credited to G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023), so it is an adopted instrument rather than a renamed result. The comparison is uniform: GPT-4o-based baselines and PASS variants are all scored by the same LLM. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction; no equation makes an output equal to an input; the paper contains no self-citations to prior work by these authors. The real weaknesses—that the oral-delivery module is never evaluated and that Section 6 concedes human evaluation is essential—are gaps in evidence for the "fully automates delivery" claim, not circular reductions. LLM-judge bias favoring LLM content is a plausible threat to validity but speculative without a demonstrated equivalence, so under the hard rules it does not count as circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on two load-bearing assumptions: the reliability of the LLM judge without human validation, and the representativeness of the dataset for the stated application. No free parameters are fitted, and no new theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption LLM-based evaluation (Llama-3-70B) provides a valid proxy for human judgment of slide quality on coherence, redundancy, and relevance.
    Section 3 states the evaluator has high correlation with human evaluations, citing Liu et al. 2023, but no human validation is performed for slide generation in this paper.
  • domain assumption The SciDuet test set of 81 research papers is representative of the general Word documents the pipeline claims to handle.
    Section 3 describes testing only on research papers, while the abstract claims support for general Word documents.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PASS: Presentation Automation for Slide Generation and Speech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPA5FU4A

@misc{pith2026250106497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PASS: Presentation Automation for Slide Generation and Speech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPA5FU4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06497}
}
read the original abstract

In today's fast-paced world, effective presentations have become an essential tool for communication in both online and offline meetings. The crafting of a compelling presentation requires significant time and effort, from gathering key insights to designing slides that convey information clearly and concisely. However, despite the wealth of resources available, people often find themselves manually extracting crucial points, analyzing data, and organizing content in a way that ensures clarity and impact. Furthermore, a successful presentation goes beyond just the slides; it demands rehearsal and the ability to weave a captivating narrative to fully engage the audience. Although there has been some exploration of automating document-to-slide generation, existing research is largely centered on converting research papers. In addition, automation of the delivery of these presentations has yet to be addressed. We introduce PASS, a pipeline used to generate slides from general Word documents, going beyond just research papers, which also automates the oral delivery of the generated slides. PASS analyzes user documents to create a dynamic, engaging presentation with an AI-generated voice. Additionally, we developed an LLM-based evaluation metric to assess our pipeline across three critical dimensions of presentations: relevance, coherence, and redundancy. The data and codes are available at https://github.com/AggarwalTushar/PASS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06497 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PASS pipeline. It takes a user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the PASS pipeline. It consists of two main modules—Slide Generation and Slide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt used for extracting topics for Non-Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prompt used for extracting topics for Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompt used for extracting content for Non-Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prompt used for extracting content for Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt used for extracting points from generated slide content [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prompt used for mapping image to slides for Non-Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt used for mapping image to slides for Technical Audience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt used for generating speaker notes based on slide content [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt used for refining speaker notes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt used for LLM Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prompt used for generations of GPT-Flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prompt used for generations of GPT-COT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Prompt used for generations of GPT-Cons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]

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. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, Himanshu Maheshwari, Anandhavelu Natarajan, and Apoorv Saxena. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.inlg-main.18/ Enhancing presentation slide generation by LLM s with a multi-staged end-to-end approach . In Proceedings of the 17th International Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 222--229, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Co...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Anjanava Biswas and Wrick Talukdar. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10295 Robustness of structured data extraction from in-plane rotated documents using multi-modal large language models (llm)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Tsu-Jui Fu, William Yang Wang, Daniel McDuff, and Yale Song. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11796 Doc2ppt: Automatic presentation slides generation from scientific documents

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Google. 2024. https://notebooklm.google.com/?authuser=1 Notebooklm

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, and et al. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Emily P. Green. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72756-7_5 The Basics of Slide Design , pages 37--62. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72756-7_5 2021

  7. [7]

    Han Ho, Long Nguyen, Nhon Dang, and Nguyen Hong. 2023. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.3.16 Understanding student attitudes toward delivering english oral presentations . International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22:256--277

    work page doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.3.16 2023

  8. [8]

    Yue Hu and Xiaojun Wan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2014.2359652 Ppsgen: Learning-based presentation slides generation for academic papers . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 27(4):1085--1097

    arXiv 2015

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153 G -eval: NLG evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Meta. 2024. llama-recipes. https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-recipes/blob/main/recipes/quickstart/NotebookLlama/

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ishani Mondal, Shwetha S, Anandhavelu Natarajan, Aparna Garimella, Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.163/ Presentations by the humans and for the humans: Harnessing LLM s for generating persona-aware slides from docum...

    2024

  4. [12]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, and et al. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, François Grondin, William Aris, Hwidon...

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nadine B. Sarter. 2006. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.01.007 Multimodal information presentation: Design guidance and research challenges . International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(5):439--445. Cognitive Engineering Insights for Human Performan...

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    Lee Giles

    Athar Sefid, Jian Wu, Prasenjit Mitra, and C. Lee Giles. 2019. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:209673936 Automatic slide generation for scientific papers . In SciKnow@K-CAP

    2019

  9. [17]

    Weiss, Mike Schuster, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Zhifeng Chen, Yu Zhang, Yuxuan Wang, RJ Skerry-Ryan, Rif A

    Jonathan Shen, Ruoming Pang, Ron J. Weiss, Mike Schuster, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Zhifeng Chen, Yu Zhang, Yuxuan Wang, RJ Skerry-Ryan, Rif A. Saurous, Yannis Agiomyrgiannakis, and Yonghui Wu. 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05884 Natural tts synthesis by conditioning wa...

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Edward Sun, Yufang Hou, Dakuo Wang, Yunfeng Zhang, and Nancy X. R. Wang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.111 D 2 S : Document-to-slide generation via query-based text summarization . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the A...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Mathewson

    Thomas Winters and Kory W. Mathewson. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16667-0_9 Automatically Generating Engaging Presentation Slide Decks , page 127–141. Springer International Publishing

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  13. [21]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.