On the Use of Large Language Models for Qualitative Synthesis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16502v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2025 13:42:26 GMT
• Title: On the Use of Large Language Models for Qualitative Synthesis
• Authors: Sebastián Pizard, Ramiro Moreira, Federico Galiano, Ignacio Sastre, Lorena Etcheverry,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for supporting systematic reviews (SR), even complex tasks such as qualitative synthesis (QS)<n>Applying them to a stage that is unevenly reported and variably conducted carries important risks: misuse can amplify existing weaknesses and erode confidence in the SR findings.<n>To examine the challenges of using LLMs for QS, we conducted a collaborative autoethnography involving two trials.<n>We evaluated each trial for methodological rigor and practical usefulness, and interpreted the results through a technical lens informed by how LLMs are built and their current limitations.
• Score: 0.45671221781968335
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for supporting systematic reviews (SR), even complex tasks such as qualitative synthesis (QS). However, applying them to a stage that is unevenly reported and variably conducted carries important risks: misuse can amplify existing weaknesses and erode confidence in the SR findings. To examine the challenges of using LLMs for QS, we conducted a collaborative autoethnography involving two trials. We evaluated each trial for methodological rigor and practical usefulness, and interpreted the results through a technical lens informed by how LLMs are built and their current limitations.

Related papers

• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• mSCoRe: a $M$ultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for $S$kill-based $Co$mmonsense $Re$asoning [74.97363626515236]
  We propose a textbfMultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for textbfSkill-based textbfCommonsense textbfReasoning (textbfmSCoRe)<n>Our benchmark incorporates three key components that are designed to systematically evaluate LLM's reasoning capabilities.<n>Our results reveal the limitations of such reasoning-reinforced models when confronted with nuanced multilingual general and cultural commonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T18:59:02Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models on the Frame and Symbol Grounding Problems: A Zero-shot Benchmark [0.0]
  The Frame Problem and the Symbol Grounding Problem have historically been viewed as unsolvable within traditional symbolic AI systems.<n>This study investigates whether modern LLMs possess the cognitive capacities required to address these problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T16:12:47Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models for Real-World Engineering Tasks [75.97299249823972]
  This paper introduces a curated database comprising over 100 questions derived from authentic, production-oriented engineering scenarios.<n>Using this dataset, we evaluate four state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our results show that LLMs demonstrate strengths in basic temporal and structural reasoning but struggle significantly with abstract reasoning, formal modeling, and context-sensitive engineering logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T14:05:23Z)
• Statistical Runtime Verification for LLMs via Robustness Estimation [0.0]
  Adversarial robustness verification is essential for ensuring the safe deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in runtime-critical applications.<n>This paper presents a case study adapting and extending the RoMA statistical verification framework to assess its feasibility as an online runtime robustness monitor for LLMs in black-box deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• Are Your LLMs Capable of Stable Reasoning? [38.03049704515947]
  We introduce G-Pass@$k$, a novel evaluation metric that continuously assesses model performance across multiple sampling attempts.<n>We employ G-Pass@$k$ in conjunction with state-of-the-art large language models to provide comprehensive insights into their potential capabilities and operational consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:12:47Z)
• FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows" [74.7488607599921]
  FaithEval is a benchmark to evaluate the faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) in contextual scenarios.<n>FaithEval comprises 4.9K high-quality problems in total, validated through a rigorous four-stage context construction and validation framework.<n>Our study reveals that even state-of-the-art models often struggle to remain faithful to the given context, and that larger models do not necessarily exhibit improved faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T06:27:53Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• Improving Retrieval Augmented Language Model with Self-Reasoning [20.715106330314605]
  We propose a novel self-reasoning framework aimed at improving the reliability and traceability of RALMs.<n>The framework involves constructing self-reason trajectories with three processes: a relevance-aware process, an evidence-aware selective process, and a trajectory analysis process.<n>We have evaluated our framework across four public datasets to demonstrate the superiority of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T09:05:10Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Revisit Input Perturbation Problems for LLMs: A Unified Robustness Evaluation Framework for Noisy Slot Filling Task [18.623619585980688]
  We propose a unified robustness evaluation framework based on the slot-filling task to evaluate the dialogue understanding capability of large language models. Specifically, we construct a input perturbation evaluation dataset, Noise-LLM, which contains five types of single perturbation and four types of mixed perturbation data. Our aim is to assess how well various robustness methods of LLMs perform in real-world noisy scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T10:22:05Z)

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.