NBDESCRIB: A Dataset for Text Description Generation from Tables and Code in Jupyter Notebooks with Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generating cell-level descriptions for Jupyter Notebooks, which is a major resource consisting of codes, tables, and descriptions, has been attracting increasing research attention. However, existing methods for Jupyter Notebooks mostly focus on generating descriptions from code snippets or table outputs independently. On the other side, descriptions should be personalized as users have different purposes in different scenarios while previous work ignored this situation during description generation. In this work, we formulate a new task, personalized description generation with code, tables, and user-written guidelines in Jupyter Notebooks. To evaluate this new task, we collect and propose a benchmark, namely TOOL , containing code, tables, and user-written guidelines as inputs and personalized descriptions as targets. Extensive experiments show that while existing models of text generation are able to generate fluent and readable descriptions, they struggle to produce factually correct descriptions without user-written guidelines based on automatic and human evaluation. Common error patterns include guideline misalignment, incorrect variables, missing code details, and faulty reasoning. Ablations show that implementing guidelines substantially improves performance. Our downstream application examining Human-AI collaboration in the documentation for code-table demonstrated enhanced usability and effectiveness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".