ArXiv

X+Slides: Benchmarking Audience-Conditioned Slide Generation

Authors
Haodong Chen, Xuanhe Zhou, Wei Zhou...
Categories
cs.AI
arXiv
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19256v1
PDF
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.19256v1

Brief

X+Slides introduces audience-conditioned slide generation by assigning audience-specific utility weights to 8,133 source-grounded probes across 113 topics and seven presentation scenes, and evaluates outputs with Audience Coverage, Domain-wise Coverage, Efficiency, and Correctness. Experiments on DeepPresenter, SlideTailor, and a NotebookLM ablation (τ_A=0.7: 0.853/0.714/0.594) show substantial but incomplete recovery of audience-essential information; summary based on the abstract (full text not reviewed).

Source evidence

Abstract

Automatically generating slide decks from source documents is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Existing benchmarks primarily assess slide completeness and technical depth, while overlooking the target audience as a critical real-world factor. For instance, specialists demand rigorous proofs, whereas decision-makers prioritize actionable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce X+Slides, a benchmark specifically designed for audience-conditioned slide generation. Built on a diverse corpus spanning 113 topics and seven presentation scenes, X+Slides employs a dynamic evaluation framework constructed from 8,133 deduplicated, source-grounded probes. By assigning audience-specific utility weights to the same source-grounded probes, X+Slides reports four complementary metrics: Audience Coverage measures how much audience-essential information is conveyed, Domain-wise Coverage shows which information types are covered, Efficiency measures delivered utility per unit of attention cost, and Correctness verifies whether slide claims are supported by the source. Experiments on DeepPresenter, SlideTailor, and NotebookLM show that current systems can recover a substantial but still incomplete part of audience-essential information: at $τ_A=0.7$, DeepPresenter reaches a best Audience Coverage of 0.714, SlideTailor reaches 0.594, and the NotebookLM ablation reaches 0.853 while showing clear grounding differences. These results indicate that visual quality and broad topic coverage should not be treated as evidence support without source-grounded evaluation.