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.
arXiv:2601. 22146v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Due to limited supervised training data, large language models (LLMs) are typically pre-trained via a self-supervised "predict the next word" objective on a vast amount of unstructured text data.
arXiv:2607.28109v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Synthetic textbook data has improved language model pre-training, but prior work largely treats the benefit as a property of generated content or l...
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....
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.
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.
SciDocBench is a workflow-centered benchmark for scientific document understanding that includes 124 expert-authored questions across seven capability groups and 19 subtasks in five scientific domains. Each question is evaluated under four conditions—English or Chinese, all-images-first or interleaved document representations—resulting in 496 evaluation instances. The benchmark is paired with SciDocIR, a typed evidence-graph representation, and SciDocDataset, a collection of 15K fine-tuning and 8K reinforcement-learning samples, forming an evaluation-to-training framework for scientific-document assistants.
arXiv:2604. 13977v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Synthetic data is a standard component in training large language models, yet systematic comparisons across design dimensions, including rephrasing strategy, generator model, and source data, remain absent.
Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training language models to perform this form of literature-...
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:2610.08781v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training...
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.