AIJun 17

X+Slides: Benchmarking Audience-Conditioned Slide Generation

arXiv:2606.1925620.7
Predicted impact top 18% in AI · last 90 daysOriginality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

For researchers and developers of slide generation systems, this benchmark addresses the overlooked factor of target audience, providing a more realistic evaluation framework.

The paper introduces X+Slides, a benchmark for audience-conditioned slide generation, and evaluates current systems, finding that NotebookLM achieves the best Audience Coverage of 0.853 at τ_A=0.7, while DeepPresenter and SlideTailor reach 0.714 and 0.594 respectively, highlighting that visual quality does not guarantee source-grounded correctness.

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.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes