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.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2606. 10315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-judge is the default instrument for evaluating conversational agents, yet its reliability is almost always reported as agreement with human ratings, not recall of real defects.
arXiv:2606. 28362v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) remain the gold standard for evidence synthesis, yet completing one typically requires 67 weeks and substantial expert effort.
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.
arXiv:2607. 13078v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows.
LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows. Much of the public literature still evaluates them as models, with less attention to their behavior as components in operational pipelines.