Evidence Selection

Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MRAG) addresses key limitations of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), such as hallucination and outdated knowledge. However, current MRAG systems struggle to distinguish whether retrieved multimodal data truly supports the semantic core of an answer or merely provides superficial relevance. Existing metrics often rely on heuristic position-based confidence, which fails to capture the informational density of multimodal entities. To address this, we propose Multi-modal Evidence Grounding (MEG), a semantic-aware metric that quantifies the contribution of retrieved evidence. Unlike standard confidence measures, MEG utilizes Semantic Certainty Anchoring, focusing on high-IDF information-bearing tokens that better capture the semantic core of the answer. Building on MEG, we introduce MEG-RAG, a framework that trains a multimodal reranker to align retrieved evidence with the semantic anchors of the ground truth. By prioritizing high-value content based on semantic grounding rather than token probability distributions, MEG-RAG improves the accuracy and multimodal consistency of generated outputs. Extensive experiments on the M$^2$RAG benchmark show that MEG-RAG consistently outperforms strong baselines and demonstrates robust generalization across different teacher models.

The rapid increase in scientific publications leads to the fact that manual study screening in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is increasingly resource consuming, inefficient, and inconsistent. Classifying studies that clearly report health-related quality-of-life results, such as EQ-5D data, requires a high level of clinical interpretation and poses challenges for human reviewers. This study investigates the use of Google's Gemini and Gemma large language models (LLMs) in automating EQ-5D detection in the PubMed biomedical database based only on published abstracts. A multi-phase framework is proposed that integrates few-shot prompting, weight ensembling aggregation, and a soft stacking meta-classifier. Nine LLMs are evaluated on a dataset of PubMed studies manually labeled by two experts regarding EQ-5D reporting. The weighted ensemble of gemini-2.5-pro, gemma-3-12b, and gemma-3-27b obtained a 0.74 weighted F1-score and 0.74 accuracy, exceeding individually attained results. The ensembling of top-performing models improved the balance between precision and recall compared to individual models, while the soft stacking approach provided greater reliability and interpretability. Feature analysis shows that the probability results from the models are important in guiding the final predictions. The findings suggest that an ensemble-based LLM setup is a reliable and scalable approach for automating screening in biomedical research.

Existing benchmarks for systematic reviewing remain limited either in scale or in disciplinary coverage, with some collections comprising only a modest number of topics and others focusing primarily on biomedical research. We present Webis-SR4ALL-26, a large-scale, cross-disciplinary corpus of 301,871 systematic reviews spanning all scientific fields as covered by OpenAlex. Using a multi-stage pre-processing pipeline, we link reviews to resolved OpenAlex metadata and reference lists and extract, when explicitly reported, structured method artifacts relevant to retrieval and screening. These artifacts include reported search strategies (Boolean queries or keyword lists) that we normalize into executable approximations, as well as reported inclusion and exclusion criteria. Together, these layers support cross-domain benchmarking of retrieval and screening components against review reference lists, training and evaluation of extraction methods for review artifacts, and comparative meta-science analyses of systematic review practices across disciplines and time. To demonstrate one concrete use case, we report large-scale baseline retrieval signals by executing normalized search strategies in OpenAlex and comparing retrieved sets to resolved reference lists. We release the corpus and the pre-processing pipeline, along with code used for extraction validation and the retrieval demonstration.

Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.

Attention identifies items relevant to a current query, but does not separately determine whether their value contributions support the prediction. We propose Warrant, a unified method for locating and controlling metric-facing attention contributions. Warrant identifies and exposes the item-wise contribution path that reaches the reported metric, then applies current-query-conditioned permission on that same path. Full Warrant improves the primary metric in 27 of 32 model-dataset comparisons across CTDG, MTPP, RAG, STPP, and TKG. Exact item-removal analysis in five representative settings finds near-zero correlation between attention and marginal prediction utility; even the highest-attention item reduces target utility in 43.5-54.4% of examples. Decomposition over the complete benchmark shows that the contributions of path exposure and learned permission vary by task. In a five-seed HotpotQA analysis, the opened path assigns more attention mass to distractors than to gold evidence, whereas learned permission preserves gold contributions, suppresses distractor contributions, and recovers evidence ranking in four of five seeds. These results show why attention-selected contributions must be localized and authorized again on the metric-facing path.