Literature Review

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

3 papers in the last four weeks, against 1 the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 6Week of Sep 21

Latest papers 22

Sep 20, 2026cs.AI

ScholarStack: Layered Research Asset Orchestration and Cross-Task Reuse for Scientific Agents

Scientific agents support a range of literature-based research tasks, such as retrieval, question answering, evidence-grounded generation, and claim assessment. Most existing systems, however, are organized around individual tasks: the same papers are repeatedly retrieved, segmented, and interpreted, and the understanding built in one task is difficult to reuse in the next. We present ScholarStack, a layered research asset framework that compiles a paper collection into reusable, versioned, and provenance-preserving assets at three complementary levels: source-grounded paper-level statements, domain-level organization, and evidence-grounded cross-paper syntheses. A common access interface returns task-specific views at the evidence granularity each task requires, preserving study conditions, source traceability, and verification status. We instantiate the framework on four task families spanning ten task settings, comparing agents that use the compiled assets with task-specific baselines under matched base models. Quality gains concentrate on tasks that require cross-paper evidence, such as multi-paper question answering and literature review generation, and query-time token cost falls on every task where it is measured, with assets compiled once and reused across tasks. These results suggest that layered research assets can serve as shared infrastructure for scientific agents, shifting literature-based assistance from isolated document processing toward cumulative, evidence-grounded workflows.

ScholarSeed AI Team, Caoqinwei Gong, Xue Jiang +17

DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group

Scholar Information Database Research Automation Literature Review Scientific Agents Reusable Knowledge

Sep 16, 2026cs.IR

PageRecall: Measuring Page Selection in Literature-Grounded Question Answering

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper

F_1

, 0.441 evidence

F_1

and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Aaditya Chauhan

Independent Researcher

Literature Review Evidence-Grounded Questions Question-Answering Benchmarks Contextual Grounding Factual Recall Natural Language Processing

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

Lit3R: Retrieve-Relate-Read for Evidence-Grounded Question Answering over Scientific Literature

We describe tus-nlp's Lit3R (Retrieve-Relate-Read) system for LitTraceQA, a shared task for literature-grounded question answering that requires systems to retrieve relevant papers, identify supporting evidence, and generate answers. Lit3R combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model (LLM) components without task-specific training. The retriever iteratively combines BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM-based verification, and complements retrieval based on the question with paper-to-paper expansion. The reader first identifies supporting evidence within individual papers and then synthesizes evidence across papers to produce the final answer and evidence trace. On the official test set, our system ranked 4th on the leaderboard. Our code is available at https://github.com/tus-ist-nlp/littraceqa.

Akira Ise, Kotaro Kumagai, Yuta Yamaguchi +3

♠Tokyo University of Science · ♣Dentsu Soken Inc. · ♡Studio Ousia

Literature Review Evidence-Grounded Questions Scientific Discovery

Aug 7, 2026cs.CL

LitTraceQA: A Benchmark for Multi-Stage Grounding and Verification in Scientific Question Answering

Scientific literature is increasingly used as a knowledge source for language models, retrieval-augmented generation systems, and research assistants, but answering research questions from papers requires more than fluent generation. A reliable system must identify the relevant papers, locate the concrete evidence that supports the answer, and produce a response that is faithful to that evidence. We present LitTraceQA, a benchmark for literature-grounded question answering over scientific papers. Given a research question and a metadata pool of papers, a system must return three connected outputs: canonical paper identifiers, supporting evidence locations, and answers in one or more requested formats, including free-form text, multiple-choice answers, and structured tables. LitTraceQA targets evidence types common in scientific reading: tables, figures, text spans, equations or algorithms, and citation contexts. The public development split contains 55 examples, including 26 hidden-source single-paper questions and 29 multi-paper questions, and provides gold papers, evidence annotations, and answers for local validation. We also analyze a larger final annotation collection with 4,978 unique-question records over 4,859 unique gold papers. By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.

Xuye Liu, Yimu Wang, Peng Shi +7

University of Waterloo · 2Amazon · 3City University of Hong Kong +1

Literature Review

Jul 29, 2026cs.DL

Scientific Knowledge Discovery in the Age of Large Language Models

The rapid growth of scholarly literature has made identifying relevant publications increasingly difficult, and conventional search systems still depend heavily on manually formulated queries and effortful manual inspection. Generative large language models (LLMs) offer a more flexible alternative, supporting literature retrieval and the screening of candidate studies against eligibility criteria. This chapter surveys 34 peer-reviewed papers applying generative LLMs to these two tasks, identified via a Boolean search over the OpenAIRE Graph (1,589 records screened to 34 inclusions). Reviewed studies are characterised by LLMs employed, model access and adaptation, prompting and architectural techniques, ground-truth sources, and evaluation metrics.

Eleni Adamidi, Serafeim Chatzopoulos, Thanasis Vergoulis

IMSI, ATHENA RC

Literature Review Scientific Discovery Evaluation Metrics

Jul 28, 2026astro-ph.IM

AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology I: Literature Review

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist with literature reviews for scientific research. We perform a controlled study of eight expert-conceived research projects across the areas of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Each project has a defined background and goal, and human experts and AI prompters are asked to perform identical literature review tasks in parallel. We compare the relevant literature selected by humans with that selected by mid-2025 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Gemini). We find the overlap between human- and AI-selected references to be small (

<

6%), indicating that AI models do not yet reproduce a competent expert search on their own, though they have the potential to complement literature searches by humans. We then assess the reliability and completeness of AI-generated candidate references, distinguishing two types of hallucination: fabrications (references to nonexistent papers) and metadata mismatches (real papers with one or more incorrect fields). We find that while fabricated references make up 3% of the AI-generated references, 64% are real papers with at least one incorrect field (title, author, year, journal, DOI, or link), indicating that the mid-2025 models require systematic verification. However, the performance is significantly improved for the 2026 model ChatGPT Pro 5.5, with a single-project test showing zero fabrication or metadata mismatches.

Anamaria Hell, Kateryna Vovk, Veena Krishnaraj +18

IPMU

Literature Review Scientific Discovery Artificial Intelligence Models Deep Research Astronomical Images Mismatch

Jul 20, 2026cs.CR

HALLMARK: Diagnosing Three Failure Modes in LLM Citation Verifiers

Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set. Rule- and LLM-based verifiers are emerging, but no shared benchmark compares them and gives detailed failure diagnostics. We close that gap with HALLMARK (Hallucination benchmark): 2,526 BibTeX entries spanning 14 hallucination types, three difficulty tiers, six diagnostic sub-tests per entry, and a contamination-resistant held-out split. On it we evaluate a DOI-lookup baseline, frontier LLMs zero-shot, tool-augmented agents, and our own rule-based, co-designed verifier bibtex-updater. Across the benchmark one result is consistent: the false-positive rate, not recall, decides whether a verifier is deployable. HALLMARK makes it concrete through three failure modes: agentic lookups buy recall but inflate false positives; at a venue-realistic base rate, the order-of-magnitude spread in false-positive rates (FPRs) -- not recall -- governs whether a verifier's flags are mostly true catches or mostly noise; and most LLMs over-flag papers published past their training cutoff, where only the two latest-cutoff models hold their false-positive rate near in-distribution levels (a signal we report as descriptive, since it is confounded with possible recall of those entries). Thus FPR is the deployment bottleneck, but an undetected fabrication remains the costlier error for the scientific record.

Patrik Reizinger, Wieland Brendel

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, ELLIS Institute Tübingen

Citations Verification Framework False-Negative Rate Literature Review

Jul 18, 2026cs.CV

Automated Cardiac Adipose Tissue Segmentation in Computed Tomography: A Literature Review

This review provides an overview of recent advancements in automated segmentation methods on Computed Tomography (CT) for two types of cardiac fat: Epicardial adipose Tissue (EAT) and Pericardial Adipose Tissue (PAT). These fat deposits, separated by the pericardium, have been linked to various cardiovascular diseases, with EAT receiving the most research attention. Their complex anatomical context makes manual quantification highly time-consuming and prone to considerable inter-observer variability. Automated methods effectively address these complications, offering a more efficient and consistent solution. This study encompasses a broad range of methods, spanning AI as well as non-AI approaches. Additionally, it presents the remaining challenges, including the need for larger annotated public datasets and optimized attenuation thresholds for contrast-enhanced CT. It is demonstrated that automated methods are able to achieve segmentation results comparable to the quality of human annotation, proving their potential as a clinical tool for discovering new biomarkers and enhancing patient outcomes.

Andreas W. Aspe, Jonas Jalili Pedersen, Andreas Ohrt Johansen +4

DTU Compute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark · Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, Denmark · Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark

Echocardiography Multi Organ Computed Tomography Segmentation Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Human Annotations Review Literature Review

Jul 8, 2026cs.SE

3100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Shyam Agarwal, Courtney Miller, Christian Kästner +1

Carnegie Mellon University

Pull Requests Code Quality Coding Agents Literature Review Artificial Intelligence Systems Causal+1

Jul 7, 2026cs.RO

OrchardBench: A Physically-Grounded, GPU-Parallel Apple-Orchard Simulation Benchmark for Agricultural Robotics

Robotic tree-fruit harvesting is a flagship problem for agricultural automation, but progress is bottlenecked by the cost and irreproducibility of field experiments: an orchard is available only weeks a year, every tree is different, and a control error can permanently damage the crop or the plant. The tree models used in graphics and agronomy are geometrically detailed but physically inert, while the GPU-parallel simulators used in robot learning contain no plausible trees. We present OrchardBench, a physically-grounded, GPU-parallel simulation of apple-orchard trees on the Newton engine. Each tree is grown by a stochastic L-system and instantiated as a fully articulated body: branches are compliant torsional spring-dampers whose stiffness follows Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, they break at a wood modulus of rupture and fall as free hinges, and apples are independent bodies on stem tethers that detach at literature-grounded pull forces and load the branch when pulled. A moving, density-controllable foliage layer occludes the canopy as real leaves do. Every physical parameter is tied to a published source. Per-environment domain randomization makes each batched world a distinct tree, and a mobile manipulator with a wrist depth camera closes the loop with geometric fruit perception and an autonomous harvesting baseline. Careful engineering of the solver and the model lets OrchardBench run many parallel environments at interactive rates on a laptop GPU. We define the tasks and a metric suite spanning harvest completeness, throughput, and plant damage (with a per-canopy-zone breakdown), and report baseline results across foliage, fruit load, terrain, canopy zone, and parallelism. The analytic baseline succeeds on about 40% of the fruit it detects and harvests only about an eighth of the reachable fruit on a tree, leaving clear headroom for novel autonomy approaches.

Humphrey Munn

School of EECS, The University of Queensland

Agricultural Robotics Physics Simulation Cpu-Gpu Hybrid Designs Literature Review

Jul 4, 2026cs.CL

GRASP: Graph-Reasoning Aided Survey Planning for High-Fidelity Related Work Generation

Writing a literature review requires a deep understanding of the relationships among cited papers: how they build on, challenge, or offer alternative perspectives to one another. We present Graph-Reasoning Aided Survey Planning (GRASP), a framework combining LLM planning for related work generation with graph algorithms to extract key relationships among cited papers. Our two-layer graph structure consists of a Graph of Thoughts and an Argument-Counterargument Planning Network, representing the cited papers at different levels of granularity, and we apply topology-aware pruning via a Steiner tree to identify the core inter-paper relationships captured in our graph. Our citation analysis-based evaluation shows that GRASP generates related work sections (RWS) that closely match human-written targets in terms of the discourse roles, intents, and grouping of citations.

Haoming Li, Jessica Ouyang

Department of Computer Science University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, TX 75080

Literature Review Relevance Large Language Model Planning Survey Planning

Jul 1, 2026cs.AI

LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform

Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.

Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu +7

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Institute of AI, Beijing, China +2

Literature Review Review Llm-As-A-Judge

Jul 1, 2026cs.CL

Multi-Turn Agentic Scientific Literature Search via Workflow Induction

Scientific literature search often requires more than retrieving papers from a single query: users' intents are underspecified, preference-dependent, and evolve through interaction. Existing search agents typically rely on fixed pipelines or implicit language-only reasoning, making their search strategies difficult to control, inspect, and refine. We introduce PaperPilot, a multi-turn literature search agent that frames scientific search as workflow induction. Given an anchor paper and a user query, PaperPilot constructs an executable DAG of paper-search operators, including keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction. User feedback is then used to refine both the query and the workflow itself. We train PaperPilot with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled workflow corruptions. Experiments show that PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent under multi-turn interaction, increasing Hit@5 from 58.0 to 77.0, MRR from 47.5 to 59.4, and nDCG@10 from 26.8 to 32.5, while reducing workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%. These results show that explicit, editable search workflows provide an effective and controllable interface for aligning literature search agents with complex scientific intent.

Jisen Li, Bingxuan Li, Nanyi Jiang +10

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Together AI · University of Pennsylvania +1

Agentic Search Literature Review Paperpilot Agentic Workflow Design Scientific Discovery Induction

Jun 18, 2026cs.IR

ScholarQuest: A Taxonomy-Guided Benchmark for Agentic Academic Paper Search in Open Literature Environments

Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks are insufficient for systematically evaluating agentic academic search under realistic open literature environments. We propose ScholarQuest, a large-scale, taxonomy-guided benchmark for agentic academic paper search. ScholarQuest is constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and four representative research intents, including method-oriented, setting-anchored, comparison-based, and scope-controlled queries. It further provides scalable answer construction and a shared retrieval backend ScholarBase for reproducible evaluation. Benchmarking results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing agent only achieves 0.314 Recall@100 and 0.355 Recall@All, indicating substantial room for improvement. In addition, analyses of search efficiency, intent-level robustness, and failure cases further highlight the benchmark's ability to provide multi-dimensional evaluation signals for academic paper search agents.

Tingyue Pan, Mingyue Cheng, Daoyu Wang +4

State Key Lab of Cognitive Intelligence, University of Science and Technology of China

Scholar Information Database Literature Review Agentic Benchmarks Question-Answering Benchmarks

Jun 15, 2026cs.CL

LectūraAgents: A Multi-Agent Framework for Adaptive Personalized AI-Assisted Learning and Embodied Teaching

Effective personalized AI-assisted learning demands systems that can not only generate accurate learner-specific educational materials, but also dynamically adapt their instruction to diverse learners. However, existing educational agents have primarily focused on lecture content automation and simulations, which often fall short of modelling multimodal and embodied instructional methods tailored for the individual learner. To this end, we propose LectūraAgents - a multi-agent framework that enables personalized learning through end-to-end adaptive embodied teaching. At its core, LectūraAgents mirrors a professor-student relationship, in which a ProfessorAgent leads a collaborative team of specialized subordinate agents through research, planning, review, and embodied delivery of lecture contents that adapt to a learner's needs. The framework offers three main contributions: (1) a hierarchical multi-agent architecture for end-to-end personalized learning; (2) an adaptive embodied teaching mechanism, wherein the ProfessorAgent executes visible and pedagogically motivated teaching actions (e.g., handwrite, highlight, underline, etc.) over contents in a teaching environment; and (3) a Teaching Action-Speech Alignment (TASA) algorithm that employs salience-based heuristics and temporal semantic segmentation to generate coherent teaching action sequences aligned with learner profiles. We evaluate LectūraAgents on diverse courses at high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels using sample-specific rubric-based analysis; with generated lecture materials and teaching actions assessed and validated by expert educators. Experimental results show consistent gains in lecture content quality, embodied teaching quality, assessment, and personalization over existing approaches, positioning LectūraAgents as a pedagogically well-grounded framework for personalized learning at scale.

Jaward Sesay, Yue Yu, Siwei Dong +1

Beijing Institute of Technology · Peking University · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence

Agentic Learning Tutors Embodied Personalization Literature Review

May 28, 2026cs.AI

Rethinking Literature Search Evaluation: Deep Research Helps, and Human Citation Lists Are Not a Ground Truth

We study large-scale literature search from two complementary angles: improving the retrieval pipeline, and stress-testing the human reference list as an evaluation target. First, we implement a Deep Research pipeline that processes the full query paper and expands the retrieved results breadth-first along their bibliographies, and show that it substantially outperforms vanilla API-only search, raising recall on RollingEval-Jun25 (a 250-paper literature-search benchmark) from below 20% to above 80%. Second, we use a neutral LLM-as-a-judge to determine if human references are sound ground truth for the task. We find significant limitations: only 51% of human citations are judged moderately relevant or higher, against 86--88% for the strongest AI-based re-rankers. We study this gap on the OpenAlex co-authorship graph, finding that humans are 2.5x more likely than the best AI re-rankers to cite a direct collaborator. Together, our results argue against single-axis literature-search evaluation: recall, topical-relevance scoring, ranked-list diversity, and a co-authorship-distance diagnostic each measure complementary properties of citation quality and should be reported jointly.

Gaurav Sahu, Laurent Charlin, Christopher Pal

1Mila – Quebec AI Institute · 2HEC Montréal · 4Canada CIFAR AI Chair +3

Literature Review Deep Research Cross-Encoder Reranking Authorship Ground Truth

May 19, 2026cs.CL

When Reasoning Supervision Hurts: TTCW-Based Long-Form Literary Review Generation

Automatic evaluation of long-form literary writing remains challenging, as generic LLM-as-Judge approaches may not fully capture creativity-related dimensions such as originality and flexibility. Although the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) provides a structured creativity framework, and prior work has demonstrated reference-based TTCW evaluation at the pairwise level, no large-scale dataset exists for long-form TTCW-based literary review generation. We address this gap by constructing a dataset of 263,911 long-form stories, each annotated with scalar scores and meta-synthesised review comments across 14 TTCW-based dimensions. Using this dataset, we fine-tune Qwen3 models at two scales, 4B and 8B, under two conditions: with and without reasoning content. Results show that non-reasoning fine-tuning achieves stronger and more stable performance, with the best setting reaching an evaluation score of 0.6820. Further analysis shows that reasoning-supervised models are more prone to parse failures, often continuing with irrelevant or repetitive reasoning-style text rather than completing the required 14-metric review report. These results suggest that, for fixed-format rubric-based review generation, reasoning supervision is not straightforwardly beneficial, and precise metric-aligned scoring remains challenging even after task-specific fine-tuning.

Jinlong Liu, Mohammed Bahja, Mark Lee

School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Long-Form Generation Literature Review Creativity Reasoning Skills

May 15, 2026cs.DL

Generative Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), based on large-language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, has taken organizations, academia, and the public by storm. In particular, impressive GenAI capabilities such as summarization of large text corpora, question-answering, data extraction, and translation, carry profound implications for the conduct of literature reviews. This impacts science, organizations and the general public, as all can benefit from GenAI-supported literature reviews. Building on the technical foundations of GenAI and grounded in established methodological discourse, this work outlines approaches for conducting literature reviews using both general-purpose (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) and specialized GenAI tools (e.g., Consensus, Elicit). We provide illustrative examples of prompts and suggest methodologically-sound literature review strategies. Throughout this perspective paper, we adopt a balanced approach considering both the opportunities and the risks of relying on GenAI in the conduct of literature reviews. We conclude by discussing philosophical questions related to the effects of GenAI on long-term scientific progress, and also present fruitful opportunities for research on improving the core of GenAI's technology-its architecture and training data-and suggest open issues in GenAI-based literature reviews methodology.

Gerit Wagner, Julian Prester, Reza Mousavi +2

Department of Information Systems and Applied Computer Sciences, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany · School of Strategy, Innovation and Technology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia · McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA +1

Literature Review Generative Artificial Intelligence Scientific Discovery

Apr 25, 2026cs.LG

GAZE: Grounded Agentic Zero-shot Evaluation with Viewer-Level Tools and Literature Retrieval on Rare Brain MRI

Vision-language models (VLMs) read an image and produce text in a single forward pass, whereas radiologists typically inspect an image several times and consult the literature before writing a report. We introduce GAZE (Grounded Agentic Zero-shot Evaluation), a framework that lets a medical VLM work in this iterative way by calling viewer-level tools (zoom, windowing, contrast, edge detection) and two retrieval tools backed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (PubMed for medical literature, Open-i for radiological images), with structured outputs validated against a schema and full tool-call traces recorded for auditability. On NOVA, a benchmark of 906 brain MRI cases covering 281 rare neurological conditions, GAZE reaches 58.2 mean average precision (mAP) at intersection-over-union (IoU) 0.3 for lesion localisation and 34.9% Top-1 diagnostic accuracy under a joint protocol that scores captioning, diagnosis, and localisation from the image alone, without task-specific fine-tuning. Before any tool is used, structured prompting and schema-validated outputs already improve over the published Gemini 2.0 Flash baseline (20.2 to 29.4 mAP@0.3), so framework design is itself an experimental variable. Tool use helps rare pathologies disproportionately: the fraction of cases with IoU > 0.3 rises from 17% to 58% for diagnoses with three or fewer examples versus 25% to 68% for common conditions (

\geq

10 cases), with gains tracking engagement (Gemini 3 Flash: Cohen's d = 0.79, 11.8 tool calls per case; Gemini 2.0 Flash: tools used in 8.2% of cases, no significant benefit). Retrieval ablations additionally reveal a model-dependent trade-off in which gains in diagnosis can coincide with losses in localisation, reinforcing the case for joint evaluation of diagnosis, localisation, and captioning in medical VLMs.

Duaa Alim, Mogtaba Alim, Liam Chalcroft

Imperial College London, UK · University of Toronto, Canada · University College London, UK

Medical Vision-Language Models Ablation Literature Review

Apr 23, 2026cs.IR

IntrAgent: An LLM Agent for Content-Grounded Information Retrieval through Literature Review

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions. In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task. In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval -- identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information. It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains. Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.

Fengbo Ma, Zixin Rao, Xiaoting Li +5

University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Literature Review Large Language Model Agents

Apr 21, 2026cs.CL

Finding New Connections between Concepts from Medline Database Incorporating Domain Knowledge

In this digital world, data is everything and significantly impacts our everyday lives. Interestingly, in this small world, everything is part of an ecosystem, where everything is connected, directly or indirectly. The same thing happens to data as well. In most cases, it may seem like a particular topic does not have any connection with another one, but in reality, they are connected through a mutually related topic. Therefore, in this research, we will discuss an adaptive model modified from the ABC model by Don R. Swanson, a Literature-Based Discovery (LBD) Model, to find the hidden connections between Concepts of Interest. The model demonstrates that two topics, A and C are different and have no relationship. But they have a common topic, B that can be used to connect topics A and C This famous model will be used in this discussion to connect Medical Concepts.

Yang Weikang, Chowdhury S. M. Mazharul Hoque, Jin Wei

Literature Review

Apr 1, 2026cs.AI

A Multi-Agent Human-LLM Collaborative Framework for Closed-Loop Scientific Literature Summarization

Scientific discovery is slowed by fragmented literature that requires excessive human effort to gather, analyze, and understand. AI tools, including autonomous summarization and question answering, have been developed to aid in understanding scientific literature. However, these tools lack the structured, multi-step approach necessary for extracting deep insights from scientific literature. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for literature analysis, but remain unreliable due to hallucinations and incomplete extraction. We introduce Elhuyar, a multi-agent, human-in-the-loop system that integrates LLMs, structured AI, and human scientists to extract, analyze, and iteratively refine insights from scientific literature. The framework distributes tasks among specialized agents for filtering papers, extracting data, fitting models, and summarizing findings, with human oversight ensuring reliability. The system generates structured reports with extracted data, visualizations, model equations, and text summaries, enabling deeper inquiry through iterative refinement. Deployed in materials science, it analyzed literature on tungsten under helium-ion irradiation, showing experimentally correlated exponential helium bubble growth with irradiation dose and temperature, offering insight for plasma-facing materials (PFMs) in fusion reactors. This demonstrates how AI-assisted literature review can uncover scientific patterns and accelerate discovery.

Maxwell J. Jacobson, Daniel Xie, Jackson Shen +6

Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, IN, USA · School of Materials Science and Engineering, Purdue University, IN, USA

Literature Review Scientific Discovery Literature Insights