# Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07955 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07955/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 49 of its 84 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 49)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03716/) (2023)
- [AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Function](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16739/) (2023)
- [Inference-Time Scaling for Generalist Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02495/) (2025)
- [Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14225/) (2025)
- [Repairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.06935/) (2022)
- [RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02387/) (2025)
- [InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03601/) (2024)
- [CollabLLM: From Passive Responders to Active Collaborators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00640/) (2025)
- [AutoSurvey: Large Language Models Can Automatically Write Surveys](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10252/) (2024)
- [Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20266/) (2024)
- [Multi-XScience: A Large-scale Dataset for Extreme Multi-document Summarization of Scientific Articles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.14235/) (2020)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18099/) (2025)
- [ScisummNet: A Large Annotated Corpus and Content-Impact Models for Scientific Paper Summarization with Citation Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01716/) (2019)
- [Aligning LLM Agents by Learning Latent Preference from User Edits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15269/) (2024)
- [Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15701/) (2024)
- [Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07103/) (2024)
- [Explaining Relationships Between Scientific Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.00317/) (2020)
- [West-of-N: Synthetic Preferences for Self-Improving Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12086/) (2024)
- [FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02270/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.05179/) (2026)
- [Reward Modeling for Scientific Writing Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11374/) (2026)
- [Co-FactChecker: A Framework for Human-AI Collaborative Claim Verification Using Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13706/) (2026)
- [RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24894/) (2026)
- [The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21547/) (2026)
- [How Is Automated Research Evaluated? A Survey of Benchmarks and Evaluation Practices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11877/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Expert domain writing, such as scientific writing, typically demands extensive domain knowledge. Although large language models (LLMs) show promising potential in this task, evaluating the quality of automatically generated scientific writing is a crucial open issue, as it requires knowledge of domain-specific criteria and the ability to discern expert preferences. Conventional automatic evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-judge systems, primarily designed for mainstream NLP tasks, are insufficient to grasp expert preferences and domain-specific quality standards. To address this gap and support realistic human-AI collaborative writing, we focus on related work generation, one of the most challenging scientific tasks, as an exemplar. We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences. GREP decomposes the evaluation into smaller fine-grained dimensions. This localized evaluation is further augmented with contrastive examples to provide detailed contextual guidance for the evaluation dimensions. Empirical investigation reveals that GREP is able to assess the quality of related work sections in a much more robust manner compared to standard LLM judges, reflects natural scenarios of scientific writing, and bears a strong correlation with the assessment of human experts. We also observe that generations from state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to satisfy validation constraints of a suitable related work section.