WikiVideo: Article Generation from Multiple Videos

We present the challenging task of automatically creating a high-level Wikipedia-style article that aggregates information from multiple diverse videos about real-world events, such as natural disasters or political elections. Videos are intuitive sources for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but most contemporary RAG workflows focus heavily on text and existing methods for video-based summarization focus on low-level scene understanding rather than high-level event semantics. To close this gap, we introduce WikiVideo, a benchmark consisting of expert-written articles and densely annotated videos that provide evidence for articles' claims, facilitating the integration of video into RAG pipelines and enabling the creation of in-depth content that is grounded in multimodal sources. We further propose Collaborative Article Generation (CAG), a novel interactive method for article creation from multiple videos. CAG leverages an iterative interaction between an r1-style reasoning model and a VideoLLM to draw higher level inferences about the target event than is possible with VideoLLMs alone, which fixate on low-level visual features. We benchmark state-of-the-art VideoLLMs and CAG in both oracle retrieval and RAG settings and find that CAG consistently outperforms alternative methods, while suggesting intriguing avenues for future work.

CLAIMCHECK: How Grounded are LLM Critiques of Scientific Papers?

A core part of scientific peer review involves providing expert critiques that directly assess the scientific claims a paper makes. While it is now possible to automatically generate plausible (if generic) reviews, ensuring that these reviews are sound and grounded in the papers' claims remains challenging. To facilitate LLM benchmarking on these challenges, we introduce CLAIMCHECK, an annotated dataset of NeurIPS 2023 and 2024 submissions and reviews mined from OpenReview. CLAIMCHECK is richly annotated by ML experts for weakness statements in the reviews and the paper claims that they dispute, as well as fine-grained labels of the validity, objectivity, and type of the identified weaknesses. We benchmark several LLMs on three claim-centric tasks supported by CLAIMCHECK, requiring models to (1) associate weaknesses with the claims they dispute, (2) predict fine-grained labels for weaknesses and rewrite the weaknesses to enhance their specificity, and (3) verify a paper's claims with grounded reasoning. Our experiments reveal that cutting-edge LLMs, while capable of predicting weakness labels in (2), continue to underperform relative to human experts on all other tasks.