ProfOlaf: Semi-Automated Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26750v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:43:33 GMT
• Title: ProfOlaf: Semi-Automated Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews
• Authors: Martim Afonso, Nuno Saavedra, Bruno Lourenço, Alexandra Mendes, João Ferreira,
• Abstract summary: ProfOlaf is a semi-automated tool designed to streamline systematic reviews.<n>It supports iterative snowballing for article collection with human-in-the-loop filtering.
• Score: 39.23489220058397
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Systematic reviews and mapping studies are critical for synthesizing research, identifying gaps, and guiding future work, but they are often labor-intensive and time-consuming. Existing tools provide partial support for specific steps, leaving much of the process manual and error-prone. We present ProfOlaf, a semi-automated tool designed to streamline systematic reviews while maintaining methodological rigor. ProfOlaf supports iterative snowballing for article collection with human-in-the-loop filtering and uses large language models to assist in analyzing articles, extracting key topics, and answering queries about the content of papers. By combining automation with guided manual effort, ProfOlaf enhances the efficiency, quality, and reproducibility of systematic reviews across research fields. A video describing and demonstrating ProfOlaf is available at: https://youtu.be/4noUXfcmxsE

Related papers

• InsightGUIDE: An Opinionated AI Assistant for Guided Critical Reading of Scientific Literature [0.13258332549279203]
  InsightGUIDE is a novel AI-powered tool designed to function as a reading assistant, not a replacement.<n>Our system provides concise, structured insights that act as a "map" to a paper's key elements by embedding an expert's reading methodology directly into its core AI logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T19:10:52Z)
• Can LLMs Automate Fact-Checking Article Writing? [69.90165567819656]
  We argue for the need to extend the typical automatic fact-checking pipeline with automatic generation of full fact-checking articles.<n>We develop QRAFT, an LLM-based agentic framework that mimics the writing workflow of human fact-checkers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-22T07:56:50Z)
• LLAssist: Simple Tools for Automating Literature Review Using Large Language Models [0.0]
  LLAssist is an open-source tool designed to streamline literature reviews in academic research.<n>It uses Large Language Models (LLMs) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to automate key aspects of the review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T02:48:54Z)
• Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Survey [60.733557487886635]
  Tool learning with large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising paradigm for augmenting the capabilities of LLMs to tackle highly complex problems. Despite growing attention and rapid advancements in this field, the existing literature remains fragmented and lacks systematic organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T08:01:26Z)
• 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)
• Bridging Research and Readers: A Multi-Modal Automated Academic Papers Interpretation System [47.13932723910289]
  We introduce an open-source multi-modal automated academic paper interpretation system (MMAPIS) with three-step process stages. It employs the hybrid modality preprocessing and alignment module to extract plain text, and tables or figures from documents separately. It then aligns this information based on the section names they belong to, ensuring that data with identical section names are categorized under the same section. It utilizes the extracted section names to divide the article into shorter text segments, facilitating specific summarizations both within and between sections via LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T11:50:53Z)
• AI Literature Review Suite [0.0]
  I present an AI Literature Review Suite that integrates several functionalities to provide a comprehensive literature review. This tool leverages the power of open access science, large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing to enable the searching, downloading, and organizing of PDF files. The suite also features integrated programs for organization, interaction and query, and literature review summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T17:30:31Z)
• Automated Grading and Feedback Tools for Programming Education: A Systematic Review [7.776434991976473]
  Most papers assess the correctness of assignments in object-oriented languages. Few tools assess the maintainability, readability or documentation of the source code. Most tools offered fully automated assessment to allow for near-instantaneous feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T17:54:50Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Toward Educator-focused Automated Scoring Systems for Reading and Writing [0.0]
  This paper addresses the challenges of data and label availability, authentic and extended writing, domain scoring, prompt and source variety, and transfer learning. It employs techniques that preserve essay length as an important feature without increasing model training costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-22T15:44:30Z)
• Scaling Systematic Literature Reviews with Machine Learning Pipelines [57.82662094602138]
  Systematic reviews entail the extraction of data from scientific documents. We construct a pipeline that automates each of these aspects, and experiment with many human-time vs. system quality trade-offs. We find that we can get surprising accuracy and generalisability of the whole pipeline system with only 2 weeks of human-expert annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-09T16:19:42Z)

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.