aiqbench analysis
This systematic literature review synthesizes 257 papers on large language model text generation from 2017 through late 2024, mapping the field's taxonomy across five core tasks and nine persistent challenges like bias and hallucinations. It offers a critical baseline for researchers navigating evaluation methodologies and identifying gaps in datasets required to advance reasoning capabilities.
Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challenges
arXiv:2405.15604v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Text generation has become more accessible than ever, and the growing interest in these systems, especially those using large language models, has spurred a surge in related publications. We provide a systematic literature review comprising 257 papers, covering the period from January 2017 to December 2025. This review categorizes text generation contributions into five main tasks: open-ended text generation, summarization, translation, paraphrasing, and question answering. For each task in our taxonomy, we review relevant characteristics and key subtasks. We assess current approaches for evaluating text generation systems, covering model-free, model-based, and human evaluation. Our investigation shows several task-specific challenges (e.g., missing datasets for multi-document summarization, lack of coherence in story generation, and difficulties in complex reasoning for question answering). We further discuss nine challenges common to all tasks and sub-tasks in recent text generation papers: bias, reasoning, hallucinations, misuse, privacy, interpretability, transparency, datasets, and computing. This systematic literature review targets two main audiences: early-career researchers in natural language processing seeking an overview of the field and promising research directions, and senior researchers who need a recent overview of the main tasks, evaluation, challenges, and mitigation strategies.
Abstract:Text generation has become more accessible than ever, and the growing interest in these systems, especially those using large language models, has spurred a surge in related publications. We provide a systematic literature review comprising 257 papers, covering the period from January 2017 to December 2025. This review categorizes text generation contributions into five main tasks: open-ended text generation, summarization, translation, paraphrasing, and question answering. For each task in our taxonomy, we review relevant characteristics and key subtasks. We assess current approaches for evaluating text generation systems, covering model-free, model-based, and human evaluation. Our investigation shows several task-specific challenges (e.g., missing datasets for multi-document summarization, lack of coherence in story generation, and difficulties in complex reasoning for question answering). We further discuss nine challenges common to all tasks and sub-tasks in recent text generation papers: bias, reasoning, hallucinations, misuse, privacy, interpretability, transparency, datasets, and computing. This systematic literature review targets two main audiences: early-career researchers in natural language processing seeking an overview of the field and promising research directions, and senior researchers who need a recent overview of the main tasks, evaluation, challenges, and mitigation strategies.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2405.15604 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2405.15604v4 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.15604 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 279 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026