SciText2Eq: Assessing LLMs for Explainable Equation Generation for Scientific Creativity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16003v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 20:14:47 GMT
• Title: SciText2Eq: Assessing LLMs for Explainable Equation Generation for Scientific Creativity
• Abstract summary: This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts.<n>We construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions.<n>We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones.
• Score: 9.800289607894994
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Related papers

• How Much Structure Do LLMs Need? Evaluating LLMs for Bibliometric Cluster Description [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) can support scientific literature synthesis, but remain prone to hallucinated references, uneven coverage, and weakly grounded thematic organization.<n>We evaluate whether bibliometric structure improves LLM-assisted synthesis by comparing six pipelines for generating cluster descriptions under different levels of evidence and structure.<n>Results show that LLMs produce descriptions semantically close to human-written ones, but are unreliable when asked to infer bibliometric structure from scratch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T02:24:09Z)
• LM4Opt-RA: A Multi-Candidate LLM Framework with Structured Ranking for Automating Network Resource Allocation [0.7933039558471408]
  We tackle complex analytical and mathematical reasoning tasks requiring nuanced contextual understanding.<n>Existing benchmarks datasets cannot address the complexities of such problems with dynamic environments, variables, and heterogeneous constraints.<n>We introduce NL4RA, a curated dataset comprising 50 resource allocation optimization problems formulated as LP, ILP, and MILP.<n>We then evaluate the performance of well-known open-source LLMs with varying parameter counts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T23:19:43Z)
• Computational Turing Test Reveals Systematic Differences Between Human and AI Language [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior.<n>Existing validation efforts rely heavily on human-judgment-based evaluations.<n>This paper introduces a computational Turing test to assess how closely LLMs approximate human language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T08:56:37Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• Evaluating book summaries from internal knowledge in Large Language Models: a cross-model and semantic consistency approach [0.0]
  We study the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate comprehensive and accurate book summaries.<n>We examine whether these models can synthesize meaningful narratives that align with established human interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T15:36:24Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin [68.95137938214862]
  We propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T07:43:55Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.