Leaderboards are crucial in the machine learning (ML) domain for benchmarking and tracking progress. However, creating leaderboards traditionally demands significant manual effort. In recent years, efforts have been made to automate leaderboard generation, but existing datasets for this purpose are limited by capturing only the best results from each paper and limited metadata. We present MetaLead, a fully human-annotated ML Leaderboard dataset that captures all experimental results for result transparency and contains extra metadata, such as the result experimental type (baseline, proposed method, or variation of proposed method) for experiment-type guided comparisons, and explicitly separates train and test dataset for cross-domain assessment. This enriched structure makes MetaLead a powerful resource for more transparent and nuanced evaluations across ML research. MetaLead dataset and code repository: https://github.com/RoelTim/metalead

An important task in machine learning (ML) research is comparing prior work, which is often performed via ML leaderboards: a tabular overview of experiments with comparable conditions (e.g. same task, dataset, and metric). However, the growing volume of literature creates challenges in creating and maintaining these leaderboards. To ease this burden, researchers have developed methods to extract leaderboard entries from research papers for automated leaderboard curation. Yet, prior work varies in problem framing, complicating comparisons and limiting real-world applicability. In this position paper, we present the first overview of Automatic Leaderboard Generation (ALG) research, identifying fundamental differences in assumptions, scope, and output formats. We propose an ALG unified conceptual framework to standardise how the ALG task is defined. We offer ALG benchmarking guidelines, including recommendations for datasets and metrics that promote fair, reproducible evaluation. Lastly, we outline challenges and new directions for ALG, advocating for broader coverage by including all reported results and richer metadata.

Finding evidence for claims from content presented in experimental results of scientific articles is difficult. The evidence is often presented in the form of tables and figures, and correctly matching it to scientific claims presents automation challenges. The Context24 shared task is launched to support the development of systems able to verify claims by extracting supporting evidence from articles. We explore different facets of this shared task modelled as a search problem and as an information extraction task. We experiment with a range of methods in each of these categories for the two sub-tasks of evidence identification and grounding context identification in the Context24 shared task.