Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2212.09577v1

, , , , In the rapidly evolving landscape of scientific research, keeping up with the latest findings has become increasingly challenging. To address this issue, there is a growing interest in automating the process of summarizing and synthesizing research papers in various fields. One specific area of focus is citation text generation, where models are tasked with generating citation texts based on a set of cited papers and the context provided by the citing paper. Previous studies on citation text generation have utilized diverse datasets and task definitions, leading to a lack of standardization in evaluating and comparing different models. In response to this challenge, the authors introduce CiteBench: a benchmark designed to unify existing datasets and facilitate standardized evaluation of citation text generation models across different domains and task settings. By leveraging this new benchmark, the authors explore the performance of several strong baselines, assess their transferability between datasets, and offer valuable insights into task definition and evaluation practices that can guide future research in citation text generation. Furthermore, previous research has approached citation text generation from various perspectives, including extractive or abstractive summarization methods, single or multiple cited papers input, as well as outputting either a single sentence or a paragraph as the generated citation text. Despite these advancements, the lack of a common task formulation and evaluation framework has hindered direct comparisons between different studies. Through CiteBench, researchers now have access to a unified platform that consolidates four existing datasets for citation text generation tasks. Overall, this work not only contributes to advancing the field of automated literature review but also sets a foundation for more systematic and comprehensive evaluations in citation text generation research. The availability of CiteBench as an open-source resource further promotes collaboration and knowledge sharing within the scientific community.

• - Rapidly evolving landscape of scientific research
• - Growing interest in automating summarizing and synthesizing research papers
• - Introduction of CiteBench benchmark for standardized evaluation of citation text generation models
• - Exploration of performance of strong baselines and transferability between datasets
• - Common task formulation and evaluation framework through CiteBench
• - Advancement in automated literature review and promotion of collaboration within the scientific community

Summary1. Scientists are learning new things very quickly. 2. People want to use computers to help summarize and put together research papers. 3. A test called CiteBench helps check how well computers can make citations in papers. 4. They are studying how well different methods work and if they can be used on different topics. 5. CiteBench helps everyone follow the same rules when doing research. Definitions- Evolving: Changing or developing over time - Automating: Using machines or computers to do tasks automatically - Benchmark: A standard for measuring or comparing performance - Baselines: Basic starting points for comparison - Transferability: Ability to apply knowledge or skills in different situations

Introduction

In the fast-paced world of scientific research, staying updated with the latest findings has become increasingly challenging. To address this issue, there is a growing interest in automating the process of summarizing and synthesizing research papers in various fields. One specific area of focus is citation text generation, where models are tasked with generating citation texts based on a set of cited papers and the context provided by the citing paper. Citation text generation has been approached from various perspectives in previous studies, leading to a lack of standardization in evaluating and comparing different models. This makes it difficult for researchers to assess the performance of their models and draw meaningful conclusions. In response to this challenge, a team of researchers introduces CiteBench: a benchmark designed to unify existing datasets and facilitate standardized evaluation of citation text generation models across different domains and task settings.

The Need for Standardization

The lack of standardization in evaluating citation text generation models can be attributed to two main factors: diverse datasets used for training and testing, as well as varying task definitions. Previous studies have utilized different datasets such as PubMed abstracts or computer science conference papers, making it difficult to compare results directly. Additionally, some studies have focused on extractive methods that select sentences from cited papers while others have explored abstractive methods that generate new sentences based on the context provided by citing papers. Moreover, there is also variation in how tasks are defined within these studies. Some define the task as generating a single sentence while others aim for longer paragraph-length outputs. Furthermore, some studies use only one cited paper as input while others consider multiple cited papers. This lack of consistency hinders progress in the field as it becomes challenging to identify which approaches are more effective or transferable between datasets.

The Creation of CiteBench

To address these challenges, CiteBench consolidates four existing datasets for citation text generation tasks: PubMed, arXiv, ACL Anthology, and Computer Science papers. These datasets cover a diverse range of domains and provide a standardized platform for evaluating models. CiteBench also introduces a common task definition where the model is given the citing paper's context and a set of cited papers as input and is expected to generate a single sentence as output. This formulation allows for direct comparisons between different studies and facilitates understanding which approaches are more effective.

Evaluating Models on CiteBench

To demonstrate the effectiveness of CiteBench, the authors evaluate several strong baselines on the benchmark. They use two popular metrics in natural language processing (NLP) - ROUGE-L and BLEU-4 - to assess the quality of generated citation texts compared to human-written references. The results show that while some models perform well on specific datasets, their performance drops significantly when tested on other datasets. This highlights the importance of standardization in evaluation as it allows researchers to identify which approaches are more transferable between different domains. Furthermore, by comparing extractive and abstractive methods, it was found that abstractive methods generally outperform extractive ones in generating high-quality citation texts. However, this may vary depending on the dataset used.

Insights from CiteBench

Through their experiments with CiteBench, the authors offer valuable insights into task definition and evaluation practices that can guide future research in citation text generation. They recommend using multiple metrics instead of relying solely on one metric for evaluation as each metric captures different aspects of model performance. Moreover, they suggest considering multiple inputs such as abstracts or full-text papers rather than just titles when generating citation texts. Additionally, they highlight the importance of considering domain-specific characteristics when designing models for specific fields such as medicine or computer science.

The Impact of CiteBench

The availability of CiteBench as an open-source resource has significant implications for the field of automated literature review. By providing a unified platform for evaluating citation text generation models, it promotes collaboration and knowledge sharing within the scientific community. Furthermore, CiteBench sets a foundation for more systematic and comprehensive evaluations in citation text generation research. It allows researchers to compare their models directly and identify which approaches are more effective or transferable between datasets. This will ultimately lead to advancements in automated literature review and contribute to the overall progress of scientific research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, CiteBench is a valuable contribution to the field of citation text generation. By unifying existing datasets and introducing a standardized task definition, it facilitates direct comparisons between different studies and provides insights into effective approaches for generating high-quality citation texts. The availability of this benchmark as an open-source resource promotes collaboration and advances research in automated literature review.