Advancing Academic Chatbots: Evaluation of Non Traditional Outputs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00991v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 17:25:23 GMT
• Title: Advancing Academic Chatbots: Evaluation of Non Traditional Outputs
• Authors: Nicole Favero, Francesca Salute, Daniel Hardt,
• Abstract summary: This research focuses on evaluating whether large language models can generate high quality non-traditional academic outputs.<n>We implement a prototype combining Meta's LLaMA 3 70B open weight and OpenAI's GPT 4o mini API based.<n>GPT 4o mini again performed best, though LLaMA 3 showed promise in narrative coherence.
• Score: 3.0969191504482243
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Most evaluations of large language models focus on standard tasks such as factual question answering or short summarization. This research expands that scope in two directions: first, by comparing two retrieval strategies, Graph RAG, structured knowledge-graph based, and Advanced RAG, hybrid keyword-semantic search, for QA; and second, by evaluating whether LLMs can generate high quality non-traditional academic outputs, specifically slide decks and podcast scripts. We implemented a prototype combining Meta's LLaMA 3 70B open weight and OpenAI's GPT 4o mini API based. QA performance was evaluated using both human ratings across eleven quality dimensions and large language model judges for scalable cross validation. GPT 4o mini with Advanced RAG produced the most accurate responses. Graph RAG offered limited improvements and led to more hallucinations, partly due to its structural complexity and manual setup. Slide and podcast generation was tested with document grounded retrieval. GPT 4o mini again performed best, though LLaMA 3 showed promise in narrative coherence. Human reviewers were crucial for detecting layout and stylistic flaws, highlighting the need for combined human LLM evaluation in assessing emerging academic outputs.

Related papers

• Let's Use ChatGPT To Write Our Paper! Benchmarking LLMs To Write the Introduction of a Research Paper [64.50822834679101]
  SciIG is a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works.<n>We assess five state-of-the-art models, including open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems.<n>Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T21:11:11Z)
• LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet? [15.785989492351684]
  This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract.<n>For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper.<n>In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T01:12:26Z)
• SLIDE: A Framework Integrating Small and Large Language Models for Open-Domain Dialogues Evaluation [23.203761925540736]
  We propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation) Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE exhibits better correlation with human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T20:32:49Z)
• Attribution in Scientific Literature: New Benchmark and Methods [41.64918533152914]
  Large language models (LLMs) present a promising yet challenging frontier for automated source citation in scientific communication.<n>We introduce REASONS, a novel dataset with sentence-level annotations across 12 scientific domains from arXiv.<n>We conduct extensive experiments with models such as GPT-O1, GPT-4O, GPT-3.5, DeepSeek, and other smaller models like Perplexity AI (7B)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T16:38:51Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• AQA-Bench: An Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs' Sequential Reasoning Ability [25.96556671801114]
  This paper introduces AQA-Bench, a novel benchmark to assess the sequential reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in algorithmic contexts.<n>We build AQA-Bench with three different algorithms, namely binary search, depth-first search, and breadth-first search, and to evaluate the sequential reasoning ability of 14 different LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T18:59:33Z)
• AIR-Bench: Benchmarking Large Audio-Language Models via Generative Comprehension [95.8442896569132]
  We introduce AIR-Bench, the first benchmark to evaluate the ability of Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) to understand various types of audio signals and interact with humans in the textual format. Results demonstrate a high level of consistency between GPT-4-based evaluation and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T15:41:22Z)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.