Context Selection for Hypothesis and Statistical Evidence Extraction from Full-Text Scientific Articles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21193v1
• Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 12:28:21 GMT
• Title: Context Selection for Hypothesis and Statistical Evidence Extraction from Full-Text Scientific Articles
• Abstract summary: We study a sequential full-text extraction setting, where the statement of a primary finding in an article's abstract is linked to a corresponding hypothesis statement in the paper body.<n>We find that targeted context selection consistently improves hypothesis extraction relative to full-text prompting.<n>Even with oracle paragraphs, performance remains moderate, indicating persistent extractor limitations in handling hybrid numeric-textual statements.
• Score: 7.537972017257894
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Extracting hypotheses and their supporting statistical evidence from full-text scientific articles is central to the synthesis of empirical findings, but remains difficult due to document length and the distribution of scientific arguments across sections of the paper. The work studies a sequential full-text extraction setting, where the statement of a primary finding in an article's abstract is linked to (i) a corresponding hypothesis statement in the paper body and (ii) the statistical evidence that supports or refutes that hypothesis. This formulation induces a challenging within-document retrieval setting in which many candidate paragraphs are topically related to the finding but differ in rhetorical role, creating hard negatives for retrieval and extraction. Using a two-stage retrieve-and-extract framework, we conduct a controlled study of retrieval design choices, varying context quantity, context quality (standard Retrieval Augmented Generation, reranking, and a fine-tuned retriever paired with reranking), as well as an oracle paragraph setting to separate retrieval failures from extraction limits across four Large Language Model extractors. We find that targeted context selection consistently improves hypothesis extraction relative to full-text prompting, with gains concentrated in configurations that optimize retrieval quality and context cleanliness. In contrast, statistical evidence extraction remains substantially harder. Even with oracle paragraphs, performance remains moderate, indicating persistent extractor limitations in handling hybrid numeric-textual statements rather than retrieval failures alone.

Related papers

• Reducing Hallucinations in LLM-based Scientific Literature Analysis Using Peer Context Outlier Detection [15.38900394412587]
  This paper introduces Peer Context Outlier Detection (P-COD), a novel approach that uses the relationships between documents to improve extraction accuracy.<n>By comparing extracted data to validated peer information within the corpus, we adjust confidence scores and flag low-confidence results for expert review.<n>Our experiments demonstrate up to 98% precision in outlier detection across 6 domains of science, demonstrating that our design reduces hallucinations, enhances trust in automated systems, and allows researchers to focus on ambiguous cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T23:15:59Z)
• 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)
• Context-Aware Hierarchical Merging for Long Document Summarization [56.96619074316232]
  We propose different approaches to enrich hierarchical merging with context from the source document.<n> Experimental results on datasets representing legal and narrative domains show that contextual augmentation consistently outperforms zero-shot and hierarchical merging baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T01:14:31Z)
• Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use? [56.90827473115201]
  Often-overlooked design choice is the retrieval unit in which the corpus is indexed, e.g. document, passage, or sentence. We introduce a novel retrieval unit, proposition, for dense retrieval. Experiments reveal that indexing a corpus by fine-grained units such as propositions significantly outperforms passage-level units in retrieval tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T18:57:35Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• A Statistical Exploration of Text Partition Into Constituents: The Case of the Priestly Source in the Books of Genesis and Exodus [1.8780017602640042]
  We present a pipeline for a statistical textual exploration, offering a stylometry-based explanation and statistical validation of a hypothesized partition of a text. We apply our pipeline to the first two books in the Bible, where one stylistic component stands out in the eyes of biblical scholars, namely, the Priestly component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T15:07:42Z)
• SAIS: Supervising and Augmenting Intermediate Steps for Document-Level Relation Extraction [51.27558374091491]
  We propose to explicitly teach the model to capture relevant contexts and entity types by supervising and augmenting intermediate steps (SAIS) for relation extraction. Based on a broad spectrum of carefully designed tasks, our proposed SAIS method not only extracts relations of better quality due to more effective supervision, but also retrieves the corresponding supporting evidence more accurately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T17:37:35Z)
• Abstract, Rationale, Stance: A Joint Model for Scientific Claim Verification [18.330265729989843]
  We propose an approach, named as ARSJoint, that jointly learns the modules for the three tasks with a machine reading comprehension framework. The experimental results on the benchmark dataset SciFact show that our approach outperforms the existing works.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T10:07:26Z)
• EASE: Extractive-Abstractive Summarization with Explanations [18.046254486733186]
  We present an explainable summarization system based on the Information Bottleneck principle. Inspired by previous research that humans use a two-stage framework to summarize long documents, our framework first extracts a pre-defined amount of evidence spans as explanations. We show that explanations from our framework are more relevant than simple baselines, without substantially sacrificing the quality of the generated summary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-14T17:45:06Z)
• At Which Level Should We Extract? An Empirical Analysis on Extractive Document Summarization [110.54963847339775]
  We show that unnecessity and redundancy issues exist when extracting full sentences. We propose extracting sub-sentential units based on the constituency parsing tree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T13:35:10Z)

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.