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:2604.08602v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has rem...
By Yuki Kataoka, Masahiro Banno, Michihito Kyo, Shuri Nakao, Tomoo Sato, Shunsuke Taito, Tomohiro Takayama, Takahiro Tsuge, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Ryuhei So, Toshi A. Furukawa
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
The paper introduces PRISMA-LLM, a reporting framework for AI-assisted systematic reviews. It is based on an analysis of 888 review-automation papers, showing a shift toward LLM- and software-driven workflows and inconsistent reporting of evaluation and limitations. The framework separates implementation details from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.
By Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin
arXiv:2608. 14737v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study analyses LLMs in imbalanced binary classification, using study screening in systematic reviews as the application domain.
By Gilberto Sussumu Hida, Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro, Clayton Suguio Hida
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:2603. 22327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a demanding and high-stakes form of scientific knowledge synthesis that remains underspecified as an evaluation setting for large language models (LLMs).
By Shreyansh Padarha, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Tristan Naidoo, Lingyi Yang, {\L}ukasz Borchmann, Piotr B{\L}aszczyk, Christian Morgenstern, Ruth McCabe, Sangeeta Bhatia, Philip H. Torr, Jakob Foerster, Scott A. Hale, Thomas Rawson, Anne Cori, Elizaveta Semenova, Adam Mahdi
The paper investigates language-of-study (LoS) bias in NLP peer reviews, defining and distinguishing negative and positive forms of bias. Using a new dataset, LOBSTER, and an LLM-based detection pipeline, the authors analyze 15,645 reviews and find that non‑English papers experience significantly higher bias rates, with negative bias outweighing positive bias. They further identify four subcategories of negative bias, noting that demanding unjustified cross‑lingual generalization is the most common.
By Ehsan Barkhordar, Abdulfattah Safa, Verena Blaschke, Erika Lombart, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, G\"ozde G\"ul \c{S}ahin
arXiv:2606. 17588v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy.
By Mika M\"antyl\"a, Patricia Matsubara, Katia Romero Felizardo, Miikka Kuutila, Marco Gerosa, Savio de Sousa Sampaio, Tayana Conte, Igor Steinmacher
arXiv:2608. 16394v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generating regulation-compliant test scenarios is essential for validating safety-critical automotive systems, yet Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to ground outputs in long, hierarchical standards.
By Vahid Zolfaghari, Nenad Petrovic, Andr\'E Schamschurko, Alois Knoll
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.
By Valentin Romanov, Monique Bax, Steven Niederer
The paper presents a pipeline that uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to extract information from 536 peer‑reviewed agent‑based modeling papers for systematic literature reviews (SLRs). GPT‑4.1 achieves about 77.95% paper‑level accuracy, while GPT‑5.0 reaches 81.67%. Field‑level accuracy varies widely, and the study notes that agreement between LLMs can signal output quality, with low agreement indicating hallucinations and high agreement with low accuracy suggesting noise in the human dataset.
By Orhan Yagizer Cinar, Timur Emre Ozkose, Emma Von Hoene, Amira Roess, Taylor Anderson, Hamdi Kavak