mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Less Is More? When Dataset Context Hurts LLM-Generated Dataset Descriptions

arXiv 2606.02334 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2026cs.DBcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Dataset search and reuse are strongly constrained by the quality of metadata such as natural language descriptions, which are often sparse or inconsistent. Although large language models (LLMs) can generate such descriptions automatically, little empirical guidance exists on what makes a good dataset description and what dataset context LLMs actually need. We study these questions through a literature-grounded framework of dataset description quality and a large-scale ablation study using 252 datasets (1,336 CSV files) from the European data portal data.europa.eu. We generate descriptions with LLMs in a baseline scenario and two ablation scenarios: (1) using only dataset titles, (2) titles and schema, and (3) titles, schema and representative data, and evaluate them with an LLM-as-a- judge framework and a semantic descriptive attribute analysis grounded in our quality dimensions. Our results reveal a consis- tent schema penalty: table-schemas alone often degrade narrative quality, while representative data partially restores grounding without improving overall human-facing quality. We further show that different LLMs exhibit stable descriptive personas. These findings provide practical guidance for LLM-supported data publishing workflows.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.