Hugging Face's logo

Datasets:
opendatalab
/
ScienceMetaBench

Modalities:
Document
Languages:
English
Chinese
License:
Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
ScienceMetaBench / README.md
sjshailab
update
f6da3ce
preview code
|
raw
history blame contribute delete
9.43 kB
metadata
license: cc-by-4.0
language:
  - en
  - zh
viewer: true
configs:
  - config_name: default
    data_files:
      - split: val
        path: data/**/*.jsonl

ScienceMetaBench

English | 中文

🤗 HuggingFace Dataset | 💻 GitHub Repository

ScienceMetaBench is a benchmark dataset for evaluating the accuracy of metadata extraction from scientific literature PDF files. The dataset covers three major categories: academic papers, textbooks, and ebooks, and can be used to assess the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) or other information extraction systems.

📊 Dataset Overview

Data Types

This benchmark includes three types of scientific literature:

  1. Papers

    • Mainly from academic journals and conferences
    • Contains academic metadata such as DOI, keywords, etc.

  2. Textbooks

    • Formally published textbooks
    • Includes ISBN, publisher, and other publication information

  3. Ebooks

    • Digitized historical documents and books
    • Covers multiple languages and disciplines

Data Batches

This benchmark has undergone two rounds of data expansion, with each round adding new sample data:

data/
├── 20250806/          # First batch (August 6, 2024)
│   ├── ebook_0806.jsonl
│   ├── paper_0806.jsonl
│   └── textbook_0806.jsonl
└── 20251022/          # Second batch (October 22, 2024)
    ├── ebook_1022.jsonl
    ├── paper_1022.jsonl
    └── textbook_1022.jsonl

Note: The two batches of data complement each other to form a complete benchmark dataset. You can choose to use a single batch or merge them as needed.

PDF Files

The pdf/ directory contains the original PDF files corresponding to the benchmark data, with a directory structure consistent with the data/ directory.

File Naming Convention: All PDF files are named using their SHA256 hash values, in the format {sha256}.pdf. This naming scheme ensures file uniqueness and traceability, making it easy to locate the corresponding source file using the sha256 field in the JSONL data.

📝 Data Format

All data files are in JSONL format (one JSON object per line).

Academic Paper Fields 

{
  "sha256": "SHA256 hash of the file",
  "doi": "Digital Object Identifier",
  "title": "Paper title",
  "author": "Author name",
  "keyword": "Keywords (comma-separated)",
  "abstract": "Abstract content",
  "pub_time": "Publication year"
}

Textbook/Ebook Fields 

{
  "sha256": "SHA256 hash of the file",
  "isbn": "International Standard Book Number",
  "title": "Book title",
  "author": "Author name",
  "abstract": "Introduction/abstract",
  "category": "Classification number (e.g., Chinese Library Classification)",
  "pub_time": "Publication year",
  "publisher": "Publisher"
}

📖 Data Examples

Academic Paper Example

The following image shows an example of metadata fields extracted from an academic paper PDF:

Academic Paper Example

As shown in the image, the following key information needs to be extracted from the paper's first page:

  • DOI: Digital Object Identifier (e.g., 10.1186/s41038-017-0090-z)
  • Title: Paper title
  • Author: Author name
  • Keyword: List of keywords
  • Abstract: Paper abstract
  • pub_time: Publication time (usually the year)

Textbook/Ebook Example

The following image shows an example of metadata fields extracted from the copyright page of a Chinese ebook PDF:

Textbook Example

As shown in the image, the following key information needs to be extracted from the book's copyright page:

  • ISBN: International Standard Book Number (e.g., 978-7-5385-8594-0)
  • Title: Book title
  • Author: Author/editor name
  • Publisher: Publisher name
  • pub_time: Publication time (year)
  • Category: Book classification number
  • Abstract: Content introduction (if available)

These examples demonstrate the core task of the benchmark test: accurately extracting structured metadata information from PDF documents in various formats and languages.

📊 Evaluation Metrics

Core Evaluation Metrics

This benchmark uses a string similarity-based evaluation method, providing two core metrics:

Similarity Calculation Rules

This benchmark uses a string similarity algorithm based on SequenceMatcher, with the following specific rules:

  1. Empty Value Handling: One is empty and the other is not → similarity is 0
  2. Complete Match: Both are identical (including both being empty) → similarity is 1
  3. Case Insensitive: Convert to lowercase before comparison
  4. Sequence Matching: Use longest common subsequence algorithm to calculate similarity (range: 0-1)

Similarity Score Interpretation:

  • 1.0: Perfect match
  • 0.8-0.99: Highly similar (may have minor formatting differences)
  • 0.5-0.79: Partial match (extracted main information but incomplete)
  • 0.0-0.49: Low similarity (extraction result differs significantly from ground truth)

1. Field-level Accuracy

Definition: The average similarity score for each metadata field.

Calculation Method:

Field-level Accuracy = Σ(similarity of that field across all samples) / total number of samples

Example: Suppose evaluating the title field on 100 samples, the sum of title similarity for each sample divided by 100 gives the accuracy for that field.

Use Cases:

  • Identify which fields the model performs well or poorly on
  • Optimize extraction capabilities for specific fields
  • For example: If doi accuracy is 0.95 and abstract accuracy is 0.75, the model needs improvement in extracting abstracts

2. Overall Accuracy

Definition: The average of all evaluated field accuracies, reflecting the model's overall performance.

Calculation Method:

Overall Accuracy = Σ(field-level accuracies) / total number of fields

Example: Evaluating 7 fields (isbn, title, author, abstract, category, pub_time, publisher), sum these 7 field accuracies and divide by 7.

Use Cases:

  • Provide a single quantitative metric for overall model performance
  • Facilitate horizontal comparison between different models or methods
  • Serve as an overall objective for model optimization

Using the Evaluation Script

compare.py provides a convenient evaluation interface:

from compare import main, write_similarity_data_to_excel

# Define file paths and fields to compare
file_llm = 'data/llm-label_textbook.jsonl'      # LLM extraction results
file_bench = 'data/benchmark_textbook.jsonl'     # Benchmark data

# For textbooks/ebooks
key_list = ['isbn', 'title', 'author', 'abstract', 'category', 'pub_time', 'publisher']

# For academic papers
# key_list = ['doi', 'title', 'author', 'keyword', 'abstract', 'pub_time']

# Run evaluation and get metrics
accuracy, key_accuracy, detail_data = main(file_llm, file_bench, key_list)

# Output results to Excel (optional)
write_similarity_data_to_excel(key_list, detail_data, "similarity_analysis.xlsx")

# View evaluation metrics
print("Field-level Accuracy:", key_accuracy)
print("Overall Accuracy:", accuracy)

Output Files

The script generates an Excel file containing detailed sample-by-sample analysis:

  • sha256: File identifier
  • For each field (e.g., title):
    • llm_title: LLM extraction result
    • benchmark_title: Benchmark data
    • similarity_title: Similarity score (0-1)

📈 Statistics

Data Scale

First Batch (20250806):

  • Ebooks: 70 records
  • Academic Papers: 70 records
  • Textbooks: 71 records
  • Subtotal: 211 records

Second Batch (20251022):

  • Ebooks: 354 records
  • Academic Papers: 399 records
  • Textbooks: 46 records
  • Subtotal: 799 records

Total: 1010 benchmark test records

The data covers multiple languages (English, Chinese, German, Greek, etc.) and multiple disciplines, with both batches together providing a rich and diverse set of test samples.

🎯 Application Scenarios

  1. LLM Performance Evaluation: Assess the ability of large language models to extract metadata from PDFs
  2. Information Extraction System Testing: Test the accuracy of OCR, document parsing, and other systems
  3. Model Fine-tuning: Use as training or fine-tuning data to improve model information extraction capabilities
  4. Cross-lingual Capability Evaluation: Evaluate the model's ability to process multilingual literature

🔬 Data Characteristics

  • ✅ Real Data: Real metadata extracted from actual PDF files
  • ✅ Diversity: Covers literature from different eras, languages, and disciplines
  • ✅ Challenging: Includes ancient texts, non-English literature, complex layouts, and other difficult cases
  • ✅ Traceable: Each record includes SHA256 hash and original path

📋 Dependencies 

pandas>=1.3.0
openpyxl>=3.0.0

Install dependencies:

pip install pandas openpyxl

🤝 Contributing

If you would like to:

  • Report data errors
  • Add new evaluation dimensions
  • Expand the dataset

Please submit an Issue or Pull Request.

📧 Contact

If you have questions or suggestions, please contact us through Issues.

Last Updated: December 26, 2025