Skip to content
implementation starting point
Benchmarks: thin evidence
Time to repro: a few days
1 risk flag
none

Results & Benchmarks

Freshness tier: cold
Direct + Inferred Evidence
Retrieval / indexing
LLaMa-3.3 (70B)
Paper
52.8
Source: paper fulltext
Retrieval / indexing
GPT-5.1 + Baseline 2
Paper F1
76.0
Source: paper fulltext
Retrieval / indexing
GPT-5.1 + Ours
Paper F1
78.2
Source: paper fulltext
Retrieval / indexing
GPT-o3 + Baseline 2 (50-table subset)
Paper F1
75.0
Source: paper fulltext

Benchmark evidence drill-down

4 findings

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.

Task Dataset Metric Value Source Evidence refs
Retrieval / indexing LLaMa-3.3 (70B) Paper 52.8 paper-derived No explicit refs
Retrieval / indexing GPT-5.1 + Baseline 2 Paper F1 76.0 paper-derived No explicit refs
Retrieval / indexing GPT-5.1 + Ours Paper F1 78.2 paper-derived No explicit refs
Retrieval / indexing GPT-o3 + Baseline 2 (50-table subset) Paper F1 75.0 paper-derived No explicit refs

Literature review tables are essential for summarizing and comparing collections of scientific papers.

Use This Implementation Because…

Confidence: low

Only historical official repository was found (JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table).

Open JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table

Reproduction Risks

  • Only historical official implementation is available
  • No direct maintained implementation is currently verified.

Hardware Notes

Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Evidence disclosure

Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.

Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.

Implementation Comparison

Top 1 paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table
historical official
Maintenance: Stale risk
Confidence: High
Reproducibility: Limited

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Matched via arXiv identifier search

Stars
1
Last push
Apr 21, 2025 (359d ago)

Risk flags

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup

Best implementation now

Only a historical official implementation is available.

Use with caution for new projects; verify against current tooling and maintained community alternatives.

JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table
Historical official
Stars: 1
Last push: Apr 21, 2025
  • Only historical official repository was found: JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table.
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation met reliability thresholds.

Reproduction readiness

Major Work
Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Apr 15, 2026

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

No dependency manifest — manual reconstruction required

  • · JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table has no requirements.txt, environment.yml, pyproject.toml, or Dockerfile.
  • · You will need to reverse-engineer dependencies from import statements in the source code.
  • · Last push was 359 days ago.
Open JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.

Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:

Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Research context

Tasks

Retrieval / indexing

Methods

Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation

Domains

Large Language Models, Information Retrieval

Evaluation & Human Feedback Data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX

Explore Similar Papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.