Tell Me How to Survey: Literature Review Made Simple with Automatic Reading Path Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed the dramatic growth of paper volumes with plenty of new research papers published every day, especially in the area of computer science. How to glean papers worth reading from the massive literature to do a quick survey or keep up with the latest advancement about a specific research topic has become a challenging task. Existing academic search engines return relevant papers by individually calculating the relevance between each paper and query. However, such systems usually omit the prerequisite chains of a research topic and cannot form a meaningful reading path. In this paper, we introduce a new task named Reading Path Generation (RPG) which aims at automatically producing a path of papers to read for a given query. To serve as a research benchmark, we further propose SurveyBank, a dataset consisting of large quantities of survey papers in the field of computer science as well as their citation relationships. Furthermore, we propose a graph-optimization-based approach for reading path generation which takes the relationship between papers into account. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that our approach outperforms other baselines. A real-time Reading Path Generation (RePaGer) system has been also implemented with our designed model. Our source code and SurveyBank dataset can be found here <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> https://github.com/JiayuanDing100/Reading-Path-Generation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".