Skip to content
← Back to explorer

arXiv2Table: Toward Realistic Benchmarking and Evaluation for LLM-Based Literature-Review Table Generation

Weiqi Wang, Jiefu Ou, Yangqiu Song, Benjamin Van Durme, Daniel Khashabi · Apr 14, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Pairwise Preference
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

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.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

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

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

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

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

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

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

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

Reported Metrics

strong

F1, Precision, Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Pairwise
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1precisionrecall

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…
  • 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 validate the evaluation protocol with human audits and cross-evaluator checks.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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…
  • 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.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, precision, recall

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now