Investigating the Use of LLMs for Evidence Briefings Generation in Software Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15828v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:37:23 GMT
• Title: Investigating the Use of LLMs for Evidence Briefings Generation in Software Engineering
• Authors: Mauro Marcelino, Marcos Alves, Bianca Trinkenreich, Bruno Cartaxo, Sérgio Soares, Simone D. J. Barbosa, Marcos Kalinowski,
• Abstract summary: We developed an RAG-based LLM tool to generate evidence briefings.<n>We used the tool to automatically generate two evidence briefings that had been manually generated in previous research efforts.<n>We designed a controlled experiment to evaluate how the LLM-generated briefings compare to the human-made ones regarding perceived content fidelity, ease of understanding, and usefulness.
• Score: 6.641248974788795
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: [Context] An evidence briefing is a concise and objective transfer medium that can present the main findings of a study to software engineers in the industry. Although practitioners and researchers have deemed Evidence Briefings useful, their production requires manual labor, which may be a significant challenge to their broad adoption. [Goal] The goal of this registered report is to describe an experimental protocol for evaluating LLM-generated evidence briefings for secondary studies in terms of content fidelity, ease of understanding, and usefulness, as perceived by researchers and practitioners, compared to human-made briefings. [Method] We developed an RAG-based LLM tool to generate evidence briefings. We used the tool to automatically generate two evidence briefings that had been manually generated in previous research efforts. We designed a controlled experiment to evaluate how the LLM-generated briefings compare to the human-made ones regarding perceived content fidelity, ease of understanding, and usefulness. [Results] To be reported after the experimental trials. [Conclusion] Depending on the experiment results.

Related papers

• Can AI Validate Science? Benchmarking LLMs for Accurate Scientific Claim $\ ightarrow$ Evidence Reasoning [6.043212666944194]
  We present CLAIM-BENCH, a benchmark for evaluating large language models' capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation.<n>We show that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall.<n> strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs' abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T21:04:39Z)
• From Human Annotation to LLMs: SILICON Annotation Workflow for Management Research [13.818244562506138]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a cost-effective and efficient alternative to human annotation.<n>This paper introduces the SILICON" (Systematic Inference with LLMs for Information Classification and Notation) workflow.<n>The workflow integrates established principles of human annotation with systematic prompt optimization and model selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T02:21:41Z)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• 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)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is an AI-based system for ideation and operationalization of novel work.<n>ResearchAgent automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them.<n>We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• C-ICL: Contrastive In-context Learning for Information Extraction [54.39470114243744]
  c-ICL is a novel few-shot technique that leverages both correct and incorrect sample constructions to create in-context learning demonstrations. Our experiments on various datasets indicate that c-ICL outperforms previous few-shot in-context learning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T11:28:08Z)
• Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate [75.10515686215177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, but their capability for producing faithful explanations in fact-checking remains underexamined. We propose the Multi-Agent Debate Refinement (MADR) framework, leveraging multiple LLMs as agents with diverse roles. MADR ensures that the final explanation undergoes rigorous validation, significantly reducing the likelihood of unfaithful elements and aligning closely with the provided evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T04:32:33Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Text with Citations via Fine-grained Rewards [19.176465185343417]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to hallucination, and their responses often lack credibility due to missing references to reliable sources. We propose an effective training framework using fine-grained rewards to teach LLMs to generate highly supportive and relevant citations. On LLaMA-2-7B, the incorporation of fine-grained rewards achieves the best performance among the baselines, even surpassing that of GPT-3.5-turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T19:00:40Z)
• From Prompt Engineering to Prompt Science With Human in the Loop [12.230632679443364]
  This article presents a new methodology inspired by codebook construction through qualitative methods to address that. We show how a set of researchers can work through a rigorous process of labeling, deliberating, and documenting to remove subjectivity and bring transparency and replicability to prompt generation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T01:37:36Z)
• Breaking the Silence: the Threats of Using LLMs in Software Engineering [12.368546216271382]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained considerable traction within the Software Engineering (SE) community. This paper initiates an open discussion on potential threats to the validity of LLM-based research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T11:02:19Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)

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.