LiRA: A Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Readable Literature Review Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05138v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 12:14:28 GMT
• Title: LiRA: A Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Readable Literature Review Generation
• Abstract summary: We present LiRA (Literature Review Agents), a multi-agent collaborative workflow which emulates the human literature review process.<n>LiRA utilizes specialized agents for content outlining, subsection writing, editing, and reviewing, producing cohesive and comprehensive review articles.<n>We evaluate LiRA in real-world scenarios using document retrieval and assess its robustness to reviewer model variation.
• Score: 66.09346158850308
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of scientific publications has made it increasingly difficult to keep literature reviews comprehensive and up-to-date. Though prior work has focused on automating retrieval and screening, the writing phase of systematic reviews remains largely under-explored, especially with regard to readability and factual accuracy. To address this, we present LiRA (Literature Review Agents), a multi-agent collaborative workflow which emulates the human literature review process. LiRA utilizes specialized agents for content outlining, subsection writing, editing, and reviewing, producing cohesive and comprehensive review articles. Evaluated on SciReviewGen and a proprietary ScienceDirect dataset, LiRA outperforms current baselines such as AutoSurvey and MASS-Survey in writing and citation quality, while maintaining competitive similarity to human-written reviews. We further evaluate LiRA in real-world scenarios using document retrieval and assess its robustness to reviewer model variation. Our findings highlight the potential of agentic LLM workflows, even without domain-specific tuning, to improve the reliability and usability of automated scientific writing.

Related papers

• From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent [52.42081442204093]
  We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper.<n>We propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log.<n> Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T13:38:23Z)
• NoveltyAgent: Autonomous Novelty Reporting Agent with Point-wise Novelty Analysis and Self-Validation [34.18769961207746]
  We introduce NoveltyAgent, a multi-agent system designed to generate comprehensive and faithful novelty reports.<n>It decomposes manuscripts into discrete novelty points for fine-grained retrieval and comparison, and builds a comprehensive related-paper database.<n>Experiments show that NoveltyAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming GPT-5 DeepResearch by 10.15%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T17:19:11Z)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• OpenNovelty: An LLM-powered Agentic System for Verifiable Scholarly Novelty Assessment [63.662126457336534]
  OpenNovelty is an agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis.<n>It grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments.<n>OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T15:48:51Z)
• Pre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Models [1.8349858105838042]
  Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as textitpre-review agents.<n>While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T09:56:07Z)
• ARISE: Agentic Rubric-Guided Iterative Survey Engine for Automated Scholarly Paper Generation [7.437989615069771]
  ARISE is an agentic-guided Iterative Survey Engine for automated generation and continuous refinement of academic survey papers.<n>ARISE employs a modular architecture composed of specialized large language model agents, each mirroring distinct scholarly roles such as topic expansion, citation curation, literature summarization, manuscript drafting, and peer-review-based evaluation.<n>ARISE consistently surpasses baseline methods across metrics of comprehensiveness, accuracy, formatting, and overall scholarly rigor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T14:14:35Z)
• Leveraging LLMs for Semi-Automatic Corpus Filtration in Systematic Literature Reviews [5.911820207772152]
  We propose a pipeline leveraging multiple large language models (LLMs), classifying papers based on descriptive prompts and deciding jointly.<n>The entire process is human-supervised and interactively controlled via our open-source visual analytics web interface, LLMSurver.<n>Results demonstrate that our pipeline significantly reduces manual effort while achieving lower error rates than single human annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:48:29Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• SciSage: A Multi-Agent Framework for High-Quality Scientific Survey Generation [2.985620880452744]
  SciSage is a multi-agent framework employing a reflect-when-you-write paradigm.<n>It critically evaluates drafts at outline, section, and document levels, collaborating with specialized agents for query interpretation, content retrieval, and refinement.<n>We also release SurveyScope, a benchmark of 46 high-impact papers ( 2020-2025) across 11 computer science domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T02:23:47Z)
• Large Language Models for Automated Literature Review: An Evaluation of Reference Generation, Abstract Writing, and Review Composition [2.048226951354646]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential solution to automate the complex processes involved in writing literature reviews.<n>This study introduces a framework to automatically evaluate the performance of LLMs in three key tasks of literature writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T08:42:25Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Automated Review Generation Method Based on Large Language Models [8.86304208754684]
  We present an automated review generation method based on large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method swiftly analyzed 343 articles, averaging seconds per article per LLM account, producing comprehensive reviews spanning 35 topics, with extended analysis of 1041 articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T15:26:36Z)
• 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)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• EditEval: An Instruction-Based Benchmark for Text Improvements [73.5918084416016]
  This work presents EditEval: An instruction-based, benchmark and evaluation suite for automatic evaluation of editing capabilities. We evaluate several pre-trained models, which shows that InstructGPT and PEER perform the best, but that most baselines fall below the supervised SOTA. Our analysis shows that commonly used metrics for editing tasks do not always correlate well, and that optimization for prompts with the highest performance does not necessarily entail the strongest robustness to different models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T12:26:05Z)

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.