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
Weiqi Wang, Jiefu Ou, Yangqiu Song, Benjamin Van Durme, Daniel Khashabi
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Literature review tables are essential for summarizing and comparing collections of scientific papers. In this paper, we study the automatic generation of such tables from a pool of papers to satisfy a user's information need. Building on recent work (Newman et al., 2024), we move beyond oracle settings by (i) simulating well-specified yet schema-agnostic user demands that avoid leaking gold column names or values, ( ...
ii) explicitly modeling retrieval noise via semantically related but out-of-scope distractor papers verified by human annotators, and (iii) introducing a lightweight, annotation-free, utilization-oriented evaluation that decomposes utility into schema coverage, unary cell fidelity, and pairwise relational consistency, while measuring paper selection through a two-way QA procedure (gold to system and system to gold) with recall, precision, and F1. To support reproducible evaluation, we introduce arXiv2Table, a benchmark of 1,957 tables referencing 7,158 papers, with human-verified distractors and rewritten, schema-agnostic user demands. We also develop an iterative, batch-based generation method that co-refines paper filtering and schema over multiple rounds. We validate the evaluation protocol with human audits and cross-evaluator checks. Extensive experiments show that our method consistently improves over strong baselines, while absolute scores remain modest, underscoring the task's difficulty. Our data and code is available at https://github.com/JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table.
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.
Only historical official repository was found (JHU-CLSP/arXiv2Table).
Open JHU-CLSP/arXiv2TableHardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
Only a historical official implementation is available.
Use with caution for new projects; verify against current tooling and maintained community alternatives.
Hardware requirements
No dependency manifest — manual reconstruction required
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:
Models
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.
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 HFEPXExplore 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.