Highlighting Case Studies in LLM Literature Review of Interdisciplinary System Science

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16515v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:52:18 GMT
• Title: Highlighting Case Studies in LLM Literature Review of Interdisciplinary System Science
• Authors: Lachlan McGinness, Peter Baumgartner,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) were used to assist four Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) researchers.<n>We evaluate the performance of LLMs for systematic literature reviews.
• Score: 0.18416014644193066
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) were used to assist four Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) researchers to perform systematic literature reviews (SLR). We evaluate the performance of LLMs for SLR tasks in these case studies. In each, we explore the impact of changing parameters on the accuracy of LLM responses. The LLM was tasked with extracting evidence from chosen academic papers to answer specific research questions. We evaluate the models' performance in faithfully reproducing quotes from the literature and subject experts were asked to assess the model performance in answering the research questions. We developed a semantic text highlighting tool to facilitate expert review of LLM responses. We found that state of the art LLMs were able to reproduce quotes from texts with greater than 95% accuracy and answer research questions with an accuracy of approximately 83%. We use two methods to determine the correctness of LLM responses; expert review and the cosine similarity of transformer embeddings of LLM and expert answers. The correlation between these methods ranged from 0.48 to 0.77, providing evidence that the latter is a valid metric for measuring semantic similarity.

Related papers

• Rankers, Judges, and Assistants: Towards Understanding the Interplay of LLMs in Information Retrieval Evaluation [44.58099275559231]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integral to information retrieval (IR), powering ranking, evaluation, and AI-assisted content creation. This paper synthesizes existing research and presents novel experiment designs that explore how LLM-based rankers and assistants influence LLM-based judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T19:24:40Z)
• LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet? [15.785989492351684]
  This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract.<n>For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper.<n>In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T01:12:26Z)
• LLM-Mirror: A Generated-Persona Approach for Survey Pre-Testing [0.0]
  We investigate whether providing respondents' prior information can replicate both statistical distributions and individual decision-making patterns.<n>We also introduce the concept of the LLM-Mirror, user personas generated by supplying respondent-specific information to the LLM.<n>Our findings show that: (1) PLS-SEM analysis shows LLM-generated responses align with human responses, (2) LLMs are capable of reproducing individual human responses, and (3) LLM-Mirror responses closely follow human responses at the individual level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T09:39:56Z)
• LLMs as Research Tools: A Large Scale Survey of Researchers' Usage and Perceptions [20.44227547555244]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led many researchers to consider their usage for scientific work. We present the first large-scale survey of 816 verified research article authors. We find that 81% of researchers have already incorporated LLMs into different aspects of their research workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T04:25:23Z)
• Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement [51.601916604301685]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate content that can undermine trust in online discourse. Current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of real-world scenarios like human-LLM collaboration. To move beyond binary classification and address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm for detecting LLM-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T08:14:10Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Unveiling LLM Evaluation Focused on Metrics: Challenges and Solutions [2.5179515260542544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention across academia and industry for their versatile applications in text generation, question answering, and text summarization. To quantify the performance, it's crucial to have a comprehensive grasp of existing metrics. This paper offers a comprehensive exploration of LLM evaluation from a metrics perspective, providing insights into the selection and interpretation of metrics currently in use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T03:54:00Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.