Papers › DGoT: Dynamic Graph of Thoughts for Scientific Abstract Generation

DGoT: Dynamic Graph of Thoughts for Scientific Abstract Generation

26 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.17491archive 2025-07-28

Xinyu Ning, Yutong Zhao, Yitong Liu, Hongwen Yang

The method of training language models based on domain datasets has obtained significant achievements in the task of generating scientific paper abstracts. However, such models face problems of generalization and expensive training costs. The use of large language models (LLMs) to solve the task of generating paper abstracts saves the cost of model training. However, due to the hallucination problem of LLM, it is often necessary to improve the reliability of the results through multi-round query prompt approach such as Graph of Thoughts (GoT), which also brings additional reasoning costs. In this paper, we propose a Dynamic Graph of Thought (DGoT). It not only inherits the advantages of the existing GoT prompt approach, but also dynamically adjust the graph structure according to data characteristics while reducing model reasoning cost. Experimental results show that our method's cost-effectiveness in abstract generation tasks is only 43.7% to 56.4% of other multi-round query prompt approaches. Our code is available at https://github.com/JayceNing/DGoT.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

jaycening/dgot officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Abstract generationHallucination

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections