Compare: A Framework for Scientific Comparisons

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06412v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 08:05:26 GMT
• Title: Compare: A Framework for Scientific Comparisons
• Authors: Moritz Staudinger, Wojciech Kusa, Matteo Cancellieri, David Pride, Petr Knoth, Allan Hanbury,
• Abstract summary: We demonstrate Compare, a novel framework that enables sophisticated long-context comparisons of scientific contributions.<n> Compare empowers users to explore and analyze research overlaps and differences at both the institutional and publication granularity.<n>Unlike traditional scientometric tools, Compare goes beyond quantitative indicators by providing qualitative, citation-supported comparisons.
• Score: 7.1713300851206725
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Navigating the vast and rapidly increasing sea of academic publications to identify institutional synergies, benchmark research contributions and pinpoint key research contributions has become an increasingly daunting task, especially with the current exponential increase in new publications. Existing tools provide useful overviews or single-document insights, but none supports structured, qualitative comparisons across institutions or publications. To address this, we demonstrate Compare, a novel framework that tackles this challenge by enabling sophisticated long-context comparisons of scientific contributions. Compare empowers users to explore and analyze research overlaps and differences at both the institutional and publication granularity, all driven by user-defined questions and automatic retrieval over online resources. For this we leverage on Retrieval-Augmented Generation over evolving data sources to foster long context knowledge synthesis. Unlike traditional scientometric tools, Compare goes beyond quantitative indicators by providing qualitative, citation-supported comparisons.

Related papers

• DeepSynth-Eval: Objectively Evaluating Information Consolidation in Deep Survey Writing [53.85037373860246]
  We introduce Deep Synth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities.<n>We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization)<n>Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write significantly outperform single-turn generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T03:07:52Z)
• SciNetBench: A Relation-Aware Benchmark for Scientific Literature Retrieval Agents [12.057215000080705]
  We propose SciNetBench, the first Scientific Network Relation-aware Benchmark for literature retrieval agents.<n>Our benchmark systematically evaluates three levels of relations: ego-centric retrieval of papers with novel knowledge structures, pair-wise identification of scholarly relationships, and path-wise reconstruction of scientific evolutionary trajectories.<n>We find that their accuracy on relation-aware retrieval tasks often falls below 20%, revealing a core shortcoming of current retrieval paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T02:53:02Z)
• SciRAG: Adaptive, Citation-Aware, and Outline-Guided Retrieval and Synthesis for Scientific Literature [52.36039386997026]
  We introduce SciRAG, an open-source framework for scientific literature exploration.<n>We introduce three key innovations: (1) adaptive retrieval that flexibly alternates between sequential and parallel evidence gathering; (2) citation-aware symbolic reasoning that leverages citation graphs to organize and filter documents; and (3) outline-guided synthesis that plans, critiques, and refines answers to ensure coherence and transparent attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T11:09:19Z)
• Mapping the Evolution of Research Contributions using KnoVo [0.0]
  KnoVo is an intelligent framework designed for quantifying and analyzing the evolution of research novelty in the scientific literature.<n>It determines a paper's novelty relative to both prior and subsequent work within its multilayered citation network.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T23:17:11Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Comparative Literature Summarization with Reflective Incremental Mechanisms [44.99833362998488]
  ChatCite is a novel method leveraging large language models (LLMs) for generating comparative literature summaries.<n>We evaluate ChatCite on a custom dataset, CompLit-LongContext, consisting of 1000 research papers with annotated comparative summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T04:09:36Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Towards a Quality Indicator for Research Data publications and Research Software publications -- A vision from the Helmholtz Association [0.24848203755267903]
  There is not yet an established process to assess and evaluate quality of research data and research software publications. The Task Group Quality Indicators for Data and Software Publications currently develops a quality indicator for research data and research software publications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T20:00:27Z)
• Incremental hierarchical text clustering methods: a review [49.32130498861987]
  This study aims to analyze various hierarchical and incremental clustering techniques. The main contribution of this research is the organization and comparison of the techniques used by studies published between 2010 and 2018 that aimed to texts documents clustering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T22:27:29Z)
• CiteBench: A benchmark for Scientific Citation Text Generation [69.37571393032026]
  CiteBench is a benchmark for citation text generation. We make the code for CiteBench publicly available at https://github.com/UKPLab/citebench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T16:10:56Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• CitationIE: Leveraging the Citation Graph for Scientific Information Extraction [89.33938657493765]
  We use the citation graph of referential links between citing and cited papers. We observe a sizable improvement in end-to-end information extraction over the state-of-the-art.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-03T03:00:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.