SESR-Eval: Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in the Title-Abstract Screening of Systematic Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19027v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:27:03 GMT
• Title: SESR-Eval: Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in the Title-Abstract Screening of Systematic Reviews
• Authors: Aleksi Huotala, Miikka Kuutila, Mika Mäntylä,
• Abstract summary: We create a benchmark dataset to evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in the title-abstract screening process of systematic reviews (SRs)<n>We present the SESR-Eval dataset containing 34,528 labeled primary studies, from 24 secondary studies published in software engineering (SE) journals.<n>Our benchmark enables monitoring AI performance in the screening task of SRs in software engineering.
• Score: 0.9421843976231371
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: The use of large language models (LLMs) in the title-abstract screening process of systematic reviews (SRs) has shown promising results, but suffers from limited performance evaluation. Aims: Create a benchmark dataset to evaluate the performance of LLMs in the title-abstract screening process of SRs. Provide evidence whether using LLMs in title-abstract screening in software engineering is advisable. Method: We start with 169 SR research artifacts and find 24 of those to be suitable for inclusion in the dataset. Using the dataset we benchmark title-abstract screening using 9 LLMs. Results: We present the SESR-Eval (Software Engineering Systematic Review Evaluation) dataset containing 34,528 labeled primary studies, sourced from 24 secondary studies published in software engineering (SE) journals. Most LLMs performed similarly and the differences in screening accuracy between secondary studies are greater than differences between LLMs. The cost of using an LLM is relatively low - less than $40 per secondary study even for the most expensive model. Conclusions: Our benchmark enables monitoring AI performance in the screening task of SRs in software engineering. At present, LLMs are not yet recommended for automating the title-abstract screening process, since accuracy varies widely across secondary studies, and no LLM managed a high recall with reasonable precision. In future, we plan to investigate factors that influence LLM screening performance between studies.

Related papers

• LLMs as Data Annotators: How Close Are We to Human Performance [47.61698665650761]
  Manual annotation of data is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly.<n>In-context learning (ICL) in which some examples related to the task are given in the prompt can lead to inefficiencies and suboptimal model performance.<n>This paper presents experiments comparing several LLMs, considering different embedding models, across various datasets for the Named Entity Recognition (NER) task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T11:11:07Z)
• A Framework for Using LLMs for Repository Mining Studies in Empirical Software Engineering [12.504438766461027]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed Software Engineering (SE) by providing innovative methods for analyzing software repositories.<n>Our research packages a framework, coined Prompt Refinement and Insights for Mining Empirical Software repositories (PRIMES)<n>Our findings indicate that standardizing prompt engineering and using PRIMES can enhance the reliability and accuracy of studies utilizing LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T06:08:57Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviews [7.030989629685138]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate title-abstract screening by simplifying abstracts for human screeners. We performed an experiment where humans screened titles and abstracts for 20 papers with both original and simplified abstracts from a prior Systematic Review. We also studied if different prompting techniques (Zero-shot (ZS), One-shot (OS), Few-shot (FS), and Few-shot with Chain-of-Thought (FS-CoT)) improve the screening performance of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T05:53:20Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs on the Semantic Overlap Summarization Task [9.656095701778975]
  This paper comprehensively evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) on the Semantic Overlap Summarization (SOS) task. We report well-established metrics like ROUGE, BERTscore, and SEM-F1$ on two different datasets of alternative narratives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T20:33:50Z)
• Reflection-Tuning: Data Recycling Improves LLM Instruction-Tuning [79.32236399694077]
  Low-quality data in the training set are usually detrimental to instruction tuning. We propose a novel method, termed "reflection-tuning" This approach utilizes an oracle LLM to recycle the original training data by introspecting and enhancing the quality of instructions and responses in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T05:13:47Z)
• LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
  The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z)
• Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review [34.12458948051519]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted numerous domains, including Software Engineering (SE) We select and analyze 395 research papers from January 2017 to January 2024 to answer four key research questions (RQs) From the answers to these RQs, we discuss the current state-of-the-art and trends, identifying gaps in existing research, and flagging promising areas for future study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T10:37:49Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.