Newest papers

When More Metadata Misleads: Probing Field-Level Grounding in LLM-Generated Museum Descriptions

Clemencia Siro, Laura Hollink A · 2026 · arXiv (Cornell University)

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2610.31193 · cited by 0 works (OpenAlex) · open-access PDF

Korean

메타데이터 조건 생성은 종종 추가 입력 필드가 토양을 향상시키는 데이터-to-텍스트 작업으로 프레임됩니다. 박물관 설명 생성은 카탈로그 레코드가 heterogeneous, 부분적으로 시각적이며 지리적 영역을 통해 불균형하게 문서화되기 때문에이 가정 조건을 도전합니다. 우리는 메타데이터 조성이 두 단계 프레임 워크를 통해 유물 설명의 생성을 형성하는 방법을 연구합니다. 1 단계는 대규모 박물관 컬렉션에서 자연 메타데이터 변화를 분석합니다. 필드 숫자, 필드 타입, 이미지 가용성 및 장소 co-vary이 있는지 여부를 결정합니다. 2 단계는 객체 정체성을 고정하고 메타데이터 양, 필드 타입 및 이미지

Machine translation (Meta M2M100); the English original follows.

Abstract

Metadata-conditioned generation is often framed as a data-to-text task in which additional input fields should improve grounding. Museum description generation challenges this assumption because catalogue records are heterogeneous, partially visual, and unevenly documented across geographic regions. We study how metadata composition shapes the generation of artefact descriptions through a two-phase framework. Phase 1 analyses natural metadata variation in a large museum collection, where field count, field type, image availability, and Place co-vary. Phase 2 introduces controlled field probes that hold object identity fixed while varying metadata quantity, field type, and image access. Our results show that metadata quantity alone does not explain generation behaviour. Field type determines whether models ground, omit, or infer information, while images can both support visual grounding and increase unsupported interpretation. More broadly, our findings show that metadata-conditioned data-to-text evaluation should assess field- and claim-level support, rather than relying only on aggregate input coverage or reference similarity.

Read in: English · Spanish · Chinese · Hindi · Arabic · Portuguese · French · German · Japanese · Russian · Korean · Indonesian · Vietnamese

Topics: Metadata, Computer science, Field (mathematics), Information retrieval, Task (project management), Object (grammar)

Sources: OpenAlex (CC0), arXiv, Crossref. Agent Exchange