The paper introduces SRBench, a benchmark dataset comprising 45,064 labeled entries from 32 curated secondary studies, designed to evaluate large language model performance in systematic review screening while addressing class imbalance. It also presents PromptSR, a tool that facilitates prompt experimentation, experiment management, and result analysis for LLM-based screening. A use case demonstrates the practical application of both SRBench and PromptSR.
By Gauransh Kumar, Luciano Marchezan, Guillaume Genois, K\'evin Delcourt, Eugene Syriani
SciLitBench is a multi-stage benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in systematic literature reviews, covering title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction across 42,981 records and 888 included papers. The study shows that explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria boost title and abstract screening performance by 28.8% and researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15%. Data extraction performance varies widely, with high accuracy for publication year but low overlap for computational approaches, and even the best models recover only a fraction of annotated evidence and limitations.
By Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin
arXiv:2608. 12138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings.
By Praveen Reddy, Charuta Mandke, Suvrankar Datta, Sarah Khan, Siddharth Reddy Anthireddy, Shitij Arora, Vishal Singh
arXiv:2606. 28363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To describe the architecture and design rationale of meta-pipe, an open-source large language model (LLM)-agent pipeline that integrates the complete systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) workflow -- from literature search through statistical analysis, manuscript generation, and quality assurance -- with mandatory human oversight at critical decision points.
By Hsieh-Ting Lin, Jiunn-Tyng Yeh
arXiv:2608. 14551v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews, but their decisions lack calibrated uncertainty.
By Arya Rahgozar, Pouria Mortezaagha
The paper reports the ABAI submission to COLIEE 2026 Task 1, a case law retrieval challenge that suppresses cited passages, and details a four‑stage retrieval pipeline: multi‑view BM25 with reciprocal rank fusion, neural reranking, graph‑based features via a graph attention network, and a LightGBM meta‑learner over 34 features. The best run achieved an F1 score of 0.177 on the official test set, compared to a cross‑validated 0.311, and the authors attribute the gap to a recall ceiling, temporal distribution shift, and threshold miscalibration. A controlled post‑hoc study examined the impact of threshold transfer, decision quality across time, and query similarity, and identified specific remedies—such as BM25 length‑normalisation tuning, event‑triple views, and dense fusion—that improved recall, while other interventions had no effect.
By Minhan Cho, Soyoung Park, Daejin Choi, Jinyoung Han
The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.
By Nikol Figalov\'a, Lynn Huestegge, Anne B\"ockler-Raettig
arXiv:2608. 20106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers.
By Nikita Khudov
HealthBench-Psych is a mental‑health subset of the OpenAI HealthBench benchmark, created by filtering 5,000 physician‑rubric conversations for mental‑health relevance using an LLM‑applied rubric and validating the selection through two rounds of blinded clinician review. The resulting 610 conversations (12.2 % of the corpus) are released along with a pipeline, model responses, grades, and analysis code. Evaluation of 20 frontier and open models by a cross‑vendor panel of three LLM judges shows a statistically tied frontier cluster, measurable refusal behavior in two models, and near‑identical rankings across judges (τ ≥ 0.92).
By Matthew Flathers, Phuong Anh Nguyen, Jill Noorily, Julian Herpertz, Meiting Chen, Jasreen Multani, Samuel Powell, Mason Granof, Mark Kalinch, John Torous
arXiv:2606. 19345v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid increase in scientific publications leads to the fact that manual study screening in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is increasingly resource consuming, inefficient, and inconsistent.
By Zhyar Rzgar K. Rostam, M\'arta P\'entek, J\'anos Tibor Czere, Zsombor Zrubka, L\'aszl\'o Gul\'acsi, G\'abor Kert\'esz
EviStreams is a live, open‑source, no‑code web platform that enables systematic review teams to control AI‑assisted data extraction at three stages: program design, field specification, and extracted predictions. Reviewers use a form builder to define typed fields, run extraction on PDFs, inspect AI‑generated values with supporting passages, and perform blinded dual review with adjudication to produce an auditable consensus export. An evaluation across four clinical corpora and three model families shows that extraction quality depends more on field specification than on the model choice.
By Sai Karthik Kosuri, Ankita Shashikant Bhosale, Michael Glick, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Chris Callison-Burch
arXiv:2608.22559v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Rubrics aim to make language-model evaluation transparent by decomposing response quality into interpretable criteria. However, natural-language rubric...
By Kaustubh D. Dhole, Charles L. A. Clarke, Eugene Y. Agichtein