arXiv:2607. 26670v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid growth of scholarly literature has made identifying relevant publications increasingly difficult, and conventional search systems still depend heavily on manually formulated queries and effortful manual inspection.
Scientific research increasingly relies on large, heterogeneous data sources, motivating interest in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that provide natural language access to scientific kno...
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
The paper introduces EGT-KG, an evidence‑grounded typed knowledge graph retrieval framework designed to enhance scientific question answering with small language models (SLMs). It compares three QA settings—standard Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) and two EGT‑KG variants (automatically generated and expert‑defined relation schemas)—using a six‑dimensional evaluation on a biopolymer‑bound soil composite literature benchmark. Results show that both EGT‑KG variants outperform vanilla RAG, with the llama3:8b model achieving a final score of 70.37 (+14.67%) and 68.82 (+12.14%) for the AS and ES variants, respectively.
arXiv:2609.40340v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evolutionary search with large language models (LLMs) can stall when progress requires external knowledge the model lacks. Supplying relevant documents...
Lit3R is a system developed by tus-nlp for the LitTraceQA shared task, which focuses on evidence-grounded question answering over scientific literature. The system combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model components without task-specific training, using an iterative retrieval process that merges BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM verification, along with paper-to-paper expansion. In the official test set, Lit3R achieved a 4th place ranking on the leaderboard.
Evolutionary search with large language models (LLMs) can stall when progress requires external knowledge the model lacks. Supplying relevant documents helps, but simply adding web search tool can kee...
arXiv:2609.16519v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research increasingly relies on large, heterogeneous data sources, motivating interest in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that...
arXiv:2607. 28618v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chemistry literature synthesis often requires assembling specific findings scattered across many publications, yet existing literature-search systems primarily return ranked document lists.
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into scientific research workflows, particularly for bibliographic discovery and literature synthesis, raises significant methodological, epistemic and regulatory challenges for the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), especially with regard to disciplinary diversity, multilingual access to sources and the evaluation of results. This paper presents an on-going use case developed within the European project LLMs4EU and the ALT-EDIC infrastructure, aimed at adapting foundation models to SSH research practices and supporting tasks such as question answering, comparative document analysis and literature review.
The paper presents a controlled comparison of six retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) strategies for scientific question answering on a large arXiv corpus. All pipelines use the same LLM generator and evaluation protocol, differing only in retrieval design—ranging from classic dense retrieval to late‑interaction methods like ColBERTv2. The authors also release a synthetic question dataset and code to enable reproducible, large‑scale evaluation of RAG trade‑offs.
The paper evaluates browser-based large language models (LLMs) for extracting detailed, contextualized data from scientific papers. It presents four workflows: (1) expert-curated prompts yield good extraction but struggle with nuance; (2) LLMs can generate effective prompts from simple instructions; (3) autonomous literature discovery is challenging, with missing or hallucinated references; (4) LLMs can build new datasets from guidelines that align closely with human experts, yet still need human oversight. The study outlines a practical, auditable workflow where experts set standards, models cross-check extractions, and researchers resolve disputes, enabling scalable scientific data curation.
The paper introduces IDRBench, a framework designed to evaluate how well large language models (LLMs) can integrate knowledge across disciplines for interdisciplinary research. It comprises datasets and tasks—IDR Paper Identification, IDR Idea Integration, and IDR Idea Recommendation—to benchmark LLM performance. The authors analyze ten mainstream LLMs, offering a comprehensive assessment and establishing baselines for future studies.