OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited. Existing RWG evaluations largely inherit summarization-oriented metrics, using lexical or semantic similarity to reference sections as proxies for quality. However, related work writing is fundamentally a citation-level scholarly positioning task: it requires selecting, organizing, and framing prior work to clarify how a target paper relates to, differs from, and contributes beyond existing research.As a result, models may generate coherent and semantically-relevant text while exhibiting academically critical failures, such as inappropriate citation selection or misplaced references, that conventional metrics do not capture.To this end, we introduce RWGBench, a benchmark that evaluates RWG from the perspective of citation decision-making rather than text similarity. RWGBench is constructed from a large-scale collection of 40,108 computer science papers and a retrieval corpus of 1.09 million documents, with a carefully curated test set comprising 100 papers and their corresponding published related work sections.We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that assesses citation selection, contextual appropriateness, organization, and discourse structure.Experiments reveal systematic limitations in current systems that are obscured by standard evaluations, while Oracle studies further disentangle retrieval-level and generation-level bottlenecks. Human evaluation further shows that our citation-centric metrics align substantially better with expert judgment than surface-level text metrics. RWGBench offers a citation-centric testbed for developing and evaluating related work generation systems that are better aligned with scholarly writing practices.

Writing a literature review requires a deep understanding of the relationships among cited papers: how they build on, challenge, or offer alternative perspectives to one another. We present Graph-Reasoning Aided Survey Planning (GRASP), a framework combining LLM planning for related work generation with graph algorithms to extract key relationships among cited papers. Our two-layer graph structure consists of a Graph of Thoughts and an Argument-Counterargument Planning Network, representing the cited papers at different levels of granularity, and we apply topology-aware pruning via a Steiner tree to identify the core inter-paper relationships captured in our graph. Our citation analysis-based evaluation shows that GRASP generates related work sections (RWS) that closely match human-written targets in terms of the discourse roles, intents, and grouping of citations.

Automatic Related Work Generation (RWG) significantly reduces the human time and effort required to author the Related Work Section (RWS) of a research paper. However, prior methods leveraging multi-agent Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on a predefined workflow, where each agent is responsible for a specific step in the entire process. This rigid, static inter-agent coordination limits the adaptive collaboration required to synthesize complex scientific literature. To address this limitation, we propose CREW (Collaborative Reinforcement Learning for Related Work Generation), a novel framework where LLM agents bypass heuristic pipelines to dynamically coordinate by autonomously selecting actions, such as Retrieve, Disseminate, Compose, and Critique, driven by a policy optimized via Independent Proximal Policy Optimization (IPPO). Extensive experiments on a standard RWG benchmark demonstrate that our approach yields substantial quality improvements over strong existing baselines, while significantly reducing token costs. Code is available at https://github.com/YenPBao/CREW-Collaborative-MARL.git