Evaluates a modular retrieval-augmented generation pipeline for multi-document scientific literature summarization. It probes the model's ability to dynamically generate queries, retrieve relevant papers, and synthesize citation-aware, coherent summaries from multiple sources. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SurveySum, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Ref-F1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill survey-sum-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Survey Sum Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-survey-sum-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: survey-sum-eval
description: Evaluates a modular retrieval-augmented generation pipeline for multi-document scientific literature summarization. It probes the model's ability to dynamically generate queries, retrieve relevant papers, and synthesize citation-aware, coherent summaries from multiple sources. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SurveySum, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Ref-F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2505.16349
bibtex_key: achkar2025askretrievesummarize
confidence: high
---
# survey-sum-eval
> Ask, Retrieve, Summarize: A Modular Pipeline for Scientific Literature Summarization — Achkar et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.16349, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates a modular retrieval-augmented generation pipeline for multi-document scientific literature summarization. It probes the model's ability to dynamically generate queries, retrieve relevant papers, and synthesize citation-aware, coherent summaries from multiple sources.
## Datasets
- **SurveySum** — total 79; splits: test (79); repo https://github.com/unicamp-dl/surveysum
## Metrics
- `ROUGE-1` — range: [0, 1]
- Recall-oriented n-gram overlap measuring unigram matching between generated and reference summaries.
- `ROUGE-2` — range: [0, 1]
- Recall-oriented n-gram overlap measuring bigram matching between generated and reference summaries.
- `ROUGE-L` — range: [0, 1]
- Recall-oriented longest common subsequence matching at the sentence level.
- `BERTScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Semantic similarity computed using contextual embeddings from PLMs (e.g., BERT) between generated and reference texts.
- `Ref-F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score combining precision (proportion of correctly included references in the generated summary) and recall (proportion of ground-truth references captured).
- `G-Eval` — range: [1, 5]
- Reference-free LLM-based evaluation using Chain-of-Thought reasoning to score criteria like coherence, coverage, fluency, and relevance on a 1-5 scale.
- `CheckEval` — range: [0, 1]
- LLM-based checklist evaluation where the final score is the proportion of positive (yes) responses to structured sub-aspect questions.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A collection of full-text scientific papers (average 7.38 per instance) retrieved via dynamic question generation, intended for multi-document summarization.
**Output**: A synthesized multi-document summary with inline citations aligned to academic standards and ground truth references.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_ref_f1(pred_summary, gold_summary):
pred_refs = extract_citations(pred_summary)
gold_refs = extract_citations(gold_summary)
tp = len(pred_refs.intersection(gold_refs))
precision = tp / len(pred_refs) if pred_refs else 0.0
recall = tp / len(gold_refs) if gold_refs else 0.0
f1 = 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall) if (precision + recall) > 0 else 0.0
return f1
```
## Common pitfalls
- ROUGE-2 scores are inherently low for abstractive scientific summarization because pipelines prioritize semantic richness and paraphrasing over strict lexical bigram matching.
- LLM-based metrics (G-Eval, CheckEval) are sensitive to evaluator model choice and configuration, which can impact reproducibility and consistency.
- Using identical models for generation and evaluation introduces egocentric bias; the protocol explicitly separates them (GPT-4o-mini for generation, Phi-3-small for evaluation).
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The evaluation employs a mix of traditional and LLM-based metrics to assess the quality of summaries in terms of content coverage, coherence, and citation alignment: ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation) measures the overlap between the generated summaries and the reference text. It calculates n-gram overlap, word sequence matching, and the longest common subsequences. Reference F1 Score (Ref-F1) measures how accurately the citations in the generated summaries align with those in the ground truth. It computes precision (proportion of correctly included references) and recall (proportion of ground-truth references captured in the generated summary), and combines them into an F1 score.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{achkar2025askretrievesummarize,
title={Ask, Retrieve, Summarize: A Modular Pipeline for Scientific Literature Summarization},
author={Achkar et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2505.16349}
}
```
- arXiv: 2505.16349
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!