The paper presents a benchmark that compares seven long‑form generation frameworks across three granularities—single chapter, multi‑chapter, and whole book—using an anchor‑based LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol to evaluate outlines directly. Results show no single framework dominates across all settings; performance depends on how well a framework’s output form matches the target granularity, with SuperWriter excelling in length‑constrained single‑chapter mode but losing advantage in whole‑book mode. The study finds only moderate correlation between outline and writing quality, supporting the idea that these two stages should be evaluated separately.
arXiv:2605. 29223v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The parameter counts of the most widely used large language models (LLMs) are often withheld by their developers, leaving model size -- a primary reference point for interpreting capabilities and costs -- largely undisclosed.
arXiv:2607. 10400v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on visual document understanding benchmarks such as DocVQA, ChartQA, and MMLongBench-Doc.
ConvergeWriter introduces a bottom‑up, data‑driven framework for long‑form document generation that first retrieves exhaustive knowledge from a source corpus and clusters it into distinct knowledge groups. These clusters then guide the creation of a hierarchical outline and the final text, ensuring the output is strictly grounded in the retrieved material and traceable to its sources. Experiments on 14B and 32B LLMs show that this approach matches or surpasses state‑of‑the‑art baselines, especially in scenarios requiring high factual fidelity and structural coherence.
arXiv:2505. 19293v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Long-context capability is considered one of the most important abilities of LLMs, as a truly long context-capable LLM enables users to effortlessly process many originally exhausting tasks -- e.
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.
arXiv:2503.06868v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing long-text generation methods produce lengthy outputs from short inputs, leaving long-input-to-long-output generation underexplored....
arXiv:2608. 25826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched.
The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.
A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leav...
arXiv:2606. 04095v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight models struggle at long-form creative writing: their generated stories either fall far short of the requested length, or their quality significantly degrades as length increases, especially when compared to frontier models.
The Writerslogic team participated in the CLEF 2026 SimpleText shared task, tackling both text simplification (Task 1) and complexity spotting (Task 2). For simplification, they built a multi‑candidate pipeline with GPT‑4o‑mini, selecting the best candidate via a reference‑free heuristic, and their Claude Sonnet 4 submission achieved a SARI of 47.43 and BLEU of 14.21, ranking third overall on the Task 1 leaderboard. For complexity spotting, they fine‑tuned a DeBERTa‑v3‑large NLI model on 350 K labeled pairs, achieving a macro F1 of 0.8081 (0.8085 in an ensemble) on binary over‑generation identification and 0.804 accuracy on multi‑class error classification, placing them second among unique teams.
OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.