Systematic Review

Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We conducted a structured, seeded review of 24 focal empirical publications, starting from the 2024 COSMIN-based review and adding a targeted update through 17 August 2026. We grouped the measures into four domains: knowledge and use, epistemic oversight, reliance calibration, and operational control of tool-using agents. In an exploratory meta-analysis, we pooled three direct subjective-objective correlations from one research program (REML r = .055; Hartung-Knapp 95% CI [-.047, .156]; combined reported N = 2,765). We could not resolve a discrepancy between the largest study's reported correlation and p-value, leaving its weight uncertain. Adding a synthetic mean of 12 cross-factor correlations from a fourth study gave r = .079 (95% CI [-.025, .181]). This sensitivity analysis concerns a broader comparison. From this small evidence base, we cannot establish a population correlation, validate workplace cutoffs, or justify substituting self-ratings for performance scores. We identified tests of foundation knowledge (AICOS-S and GLAT) and measures of verification, reliance, trust, and dependency. We found no validated individual-level instrument in the focal corpus that tests the full combination of agent scope, permissions, recovery, state isolation, independent review, and evidence-based closure; some cover subsets. We propose a four-layer workplace battery with non-compensatory decision rules, but have not tested its thresholds or whether it improves on other assessment approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.

This paper presents an overview of the Detection and Classification of Acoustic Scenes and Events (DCASE) 2026 Challenge Task 6, Audio Moment Retrieval (AMR) from Long Audio. Given a several-minute-long audio recording and a free-form text query, AMR aims to retrieve temporal moments in the recording that match the query, where each moment is represented by a pair of start and end timestamps. This task requires effective cross-modal alignment and long-range temporal modeling. We describe the task definition, the evaluation metrics, the development and evaluation datasets, and a baseline system that combines a pre-trained MS-CLAP feature extractor with a Detection Transformer (DETR)-based moment-detection network. On the development data, the baseline trained on a manually annotated dataset and a synthetic dataset achieved Recall1@0.7 of 13.56%, indicating that AMR in long audio remains a challenging problem. The challenge attracted 21 teams, which submitted 59 systems in total. The three best systems achieved Recall1@0.7 of 48.59%, roughly 3.5 times the baseline score. The results show that strengthening the audio-text feature extractor and the moment-detection network led to substantial performance improvements. Furthermore, the top three teams boosted performance by applying confidence score calibration or ensembling across different temporal resolutions of features.

Artificial intelligence in recruitment has shifted the object being automated from profile pairs and ranked lists to multi-stage workflows that retrieve evidence, compare candidates, and support or execute actions. This systematized narrative review traces that development from bilateral retrieval and behavioral ranking through neural person--job matching, large language model (LLM) components, and tool-using recruiting agents. Using a purposive search and coding protocol updated through 23 July 2026, plus targeted updates through 2 September 2026, we organize 40 representative works with supporting industrial and legal sources. This synthesis is not a prevalence estimate. We analyze three coupled transitions: from similarity to reciprocal suitability, from a model to a compound workflow, and from offline prediction to evidence- and productivity-aligned evaluation. Across document understanding, retrieval, ranking, assessment, interviewing, sourcing, and human handoff, we distinguish field-, pair-, list-, case-, trajectory-, and outcome-level evidence. Persistent gaps arise because behavioral labels confound exposure, preference, and qualification; private and synthetic data limit external validity; final-output scores conceal pipeline failures; and, within the coded set, privacy is not directly evaluated and no row jointly evaluates utility, fairness, privacy, and security. These observations describe the coded set rather than the field as a whole. We therefore introduce a staged mapping from evaluation evidence to the strongest defensible claim, together with an agenda for reciprocal, evidence-grounded, temporally controlled, selective, and auditable systems. Progress should be judged by whether workflows retrieve the right evidence, preserve uncertainty, support contestable decisions, and improve outcomes under explicit cost and risk constraints.

Biomedical artificial intelligence is moving from literature retrieval toward evidence synthesis for knowledge graphs, clinical decision support, and computational models. Yet most information-extraction systems still represent findings as simple relations, discarding the quantitative and contextual detail needed for interpretation and reuse. A claim that one entity affects another is insufficient when the magnitude, unit, population, comparator, experimental conditions, uncertainty, and provenance are missing. We define quantitative evidence mining as a framework for transforming biomedical findings into structured, context-rich, and auditable evidence units. We define the core elements of an evidence unit: the claim; measured entity and property; value, unit, or scale; comparator; population; biological or clinical conditions; temporal context; uncertainty; provenance; validation results; and expert-review status. We propose an eight-stage reference architecture spanning corpus selection, entity recognition, quantity extraction, context linking, normalization, evidence-unit assembly, multidimensional plausibility assessment, and export and governance. A central principle is that plausibility should not be collapsed into a single truth label; statistical, biological, methodological, contextual, and provenance-based support should remain explicit. The framework links information extraction to evidence synthesis and computational reuse, with applications in clinical-trial analysis, biomarker research, pharmacovigilance, knowledge-graph construction, and mechanistic modelling. It is a research agenda rather than a validated end-to-end system. Progress will require annotated multimodal benchmarks, rigorous component- and workflow-level evaluation, prospective testing, transparent provenance, and sustained expert oversight.

In modern industry, keeping complex systems reliable, safe, and efficient hinges on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM). Machine Learning (ML) has largely driven advancements in diagnostics and prognostics, yet purely data-driven models face inherent limitations, such as poor generalization, an inability to infer causal relationships, and a lack of interpretability. Physics-Informed Machine Learning (PIML) helps mitigate these limitations by incorporating prior physical knowledge directly into the ML pipeline, thereby fostering growing interest in its application to PHM. This work investigates how PIML is being leveraged in the context of PHM through a systematic literature review of 212 studies. The review introduces a four-class classification scheme, consisting of observational bias, inductive bias, learning bias, and hybrid approaches, and further categorizes studies by PHM task. Across all four classes, the reviewed studies consistently demonstrate improved predictive performance over conventional baselines across a broad range of assets, although the literature is heavily skewed toward lithium-ion batteries and bearings, and dominated by problem-specific solutions. Overall, the review indicates that physics-informed approaches already provide tangible benefits, whereas claims of improvements concerning some of the aforementioned limitations lack sufficient supporting evidence. Future research should prioritize transferable design patterns, benchmarks comparing integration strategies, and uncertainty-aware models that are lightweight and robust enough for online deployment in real-world settings.

Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.

Systematic reviews of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are routinely used as evidence for clinical care guidelines. Such evidence has to meet high research integrity standards to prevent low quality or false research outputs influencing the clinical care. However, assessing research integrity of published RCTs is a complex process requiring manual effort, and potentially resulting in diverse opinions of the human assessors. This paper describes INSPECT-AI, an LLM-based interactive tool that assists human reviewers with research integrity assessments of published RCTs based on the community approved INSPECT-SR framework, and the Research Integrity Provenance and Evidence ontology (RIPE-O) for documenting the provenance of the assessment process. In addition, we present the Research Integrity Provenance and Evidence knowledge graph (RIPE-KG), an initial set of 140 expert research integrity assessments of 95 RCT publications generated by INSPECT-AI and described using RIPE-O.

As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments. System integration has long been central to software audits in safety-critical domains such as aerospace. However, its role in AI auditing remains underexplored. Scanning through 4,259 documents, we present a scoping review of AI audits that treat system integration as a core tenet of evaluation (n = 58). Using reflexive thematic analysis, we analyze their elements, actors, enablers, and constraints. We find that the corpus represents an emerging yet still fragmented form of AI auditing: few existing measures target integration-specific risks; large gaps remain in meeting traditional audit expectations; and access to necessary information and resources significantly influences audit design. Nonetheless, integration can be categorized across three sites (inter-component, system-environment, and multi-system), each serving the functions of risk exploration, risk determination, coordination, and procedural regularity. Deviating from other types of evaluations, these audits assess qualities specific to system integration, including compatibility, completeness, and oversight. This review calls on the AI community to prioritize system integration as a core strategy for addressing AI risk, and to develop audit practices capable of capturing failures across components, environments, and systems beyond the reach of component-level evaluation.

When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation. Yet whether (and how) Explainable AI (XAI) can satisfy this right in practice remains poorly understood, with direct implications for individuals' ability to contest automated decisions that affect their lives. This paper presents a systematic literature review of XAI in the context of the EU Right to Explanation, with particular focus on Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR, Art. 86 AI Act (AIA), and related instruments. We consider papers published from 2024 onwards, as the final version of the AIA was published in July 2024---with Art. 86 being added late. From 2643 initial records identified by a deliberately broad search, we review 57 full texts, of which only 19 papers demonstrate substantive integration of both legal and technical perspectives, showing gaps in the interdisciplinary synthesis of the current regulatory framework. We document three problematic patterns across the corpus: Most misidentify the GDPR legal basis; few engage with the CJEU's Dun & Bradstreet judgment (likely due to publication timing); and the distinction between explanation form (governed by addressee) and content (governed by legal purpose) is often conflated. We conceptualize this as the Addressee/Purpose Framework, propose a four-phase blueprint for operationalization, and identify six concrete open research questions. Without further progress, the Right to Explanation risks remaining a formal obligation without a technically realizable path to compliance.

Meta-analysis synthesis highlights a fundamental challenge in knowledge-based scientific analysis: structured evidence does not by itself represent the analytical knowledge required for executable computation. Decisions about evidence assignment, analytical contrasts, outcome and time-point alignment, effect-size formulation, and methodological admissibility must be explicit before statistical execution. Existing automated approaches often embed these decisions in model outputs, generated code, or workflow traces rather than representing them as independently verifiable knowledge. We introduce the Executable Analytical Knowledge Representation (EAKR), a machine-actionable representation of the knowledge required to transform structured evidence into executable meta-analysis. An EAKR represents evidence, relations, numerical inputs, constraints, provenance, and unresolved issues. We operationalise EAKR in MetaSynDec, an agentic harness in which large language models propose structured updates and deterministic services govern schema- and contract-based validation and execution. Across 58 synthesis units, MetaSynDec constructed all EAKRs, with 57 proceeding to statistical execution. Of 56 units with sufficient information to define a reference analysis object, 38 (67.9%) achieved complete object fidelity and 42 (75.0%) exact evidence-set agreement, with a mean Jaccard similarity of 0.909. Generated and published confidence intervals overlapped in 54 of 55 units (98.2%). MetaSynDec outperformed direct LLM generation in reference synthesis-structure agreement (57/58 versus 23/58; p<0.001) and among 23 jointly completed units, exact reference-formulation agreement (23/23 versus 1/23; p<0.001). These findings provide feasibility evidence that EAKR supports formal validation, traceability, statistical execution, and improved methodological agreement relative to direct LLM generation.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

Energy system models guide societally important decisions, but their credibility rests on quantitative assumptions that are difficult to source and audit. Meta-analyses can improve transparency and modeling practices, but the rapid growth of publications makes manual information extraction increasingly impractical. Consequently, databases are updated infrequently and efforts are often duplicated across research groups. Here, we demonstrate the highly accurate automated extraction of quantitative information from 76,000 energy system studies published since 2010. We compile 3.2 million structured quantitative data points together with 20 million associated metadata entries, spanning a broad spectrum of technologies, methodological approaches and system characteristics. Beyond providing input data for models, the resulting FAIR database make the energy systems literature itself analysable. We show where academic assumptions diverge from empirical observed data, and how research priorities vary at scale across technologies, regions and time. To facilitate broad use within the community, the database is provided through an interactive dashboard, enabling users to filter, analyse and download data according to their specific research needs.

The rapid growth of the global aging population presents severe challenges to healthcare systems, necessitating efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care models. While Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (OR) provide robust optimization and decision-support tools to address these multidimensional complexities, current applications often remain fragmented. This paper presents a thematic review of 30 seminal studies at the intersection of OR and elderly care, categorizing the literature into home healthcare operations, polypharmacy management, and clinical chronotherapy. Our analysis highlights a significant methodological evolution from static, deterministic models toward dynamic and stochastic frameworks integrated with artificial intelligence (AI). Despite these advancements, a critical translational gap persists: the current OR literature is heavily dominated by process-level optimizations, such as staff routing, and struggles to translate these operational efficiencies into measurable clinical outcomes. Furthermore, holistic models bridging the transition between hospital and community care remain critically underexplored. To develop resilient and smart healthcare systems, this study proposes a conceptual framework that shifts the research focus from isolated operational tasks to integrated, multi-level decision-making. We emphasize the critical need for robust systems analysis, human-inclusive design, and the smartification of care through emerging digital technologies - including digital twins and large language models - to successfully bridge the gap between theoretical operational metrics and tangible patient-level health outcomes.

Probably not, at least for meta-analyses in economics. In a pre-registered, identity-masked, within-paper experiment, the authors of 44 meta-analyses ranked three AI reports on their own paper by usefulness for improving it: a single pass by a frontier model against two multi-agent debate tools we built and expected to win. All reports were held to a common length and template. The authors preferred the single pass, by 0.66 rank points over mad-research (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00) and 0.57 over paper-workshop (0.16 to 0.95), though paper-workshop spent roughly thirty times the tokens. Authors who recalled their journal referee report usually placed it first and never last; in a separate exercise, three AI judges almost always placed the real journal referee report last. Among the three AI reports, Gemini (the judge whose model family wrote none of the reports) would have ranked paper-workshop first in the authors' place, reversing the single-pass preference. The reversal warns against substituting an AI judge for the author. We measure perceived usefulness for finished papers; whether AI should referee papers is a separate question.

Vision foundation models (VFMs) are increasingly being developed for radiological imaging, yet their definition, development and evaluation remain heterogeneous. We conducted a PRISMAScR scoping review of peer-reviewed studies published between January 2017 and March 2026 describing foundation models trained exclusively on radiological imaging data. Sixty-seven studies were included and mapped across three pillars: data scale and heterogeneity, architectural and pretraining scalability, and downstream transferability and generalization. Datasets primarily covered brain MRI, thoracoabdominal CT, and chest X-ray, ranging from fewer than 100,000 samples to multi-million-image cohorts. Transformer-based architectures and self-supervised pretraining predominated, particularly masked image modeling, contrastive learning and multi-stage approaches. Evaluation focused mainly on segmentation and classification, whereas cross-center, cross-scanner, anatomical and modality-shift validation was inconsistently reported. Alignment with FUTURE-AI principles was uneven. Overall, radiology-specific VFMs show promising transferability, but clinical translation remains constrained by limited data representativeness, heterogeneous benchmarks, incomplete reporting and insufficient deployment-oriented evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly decide whether software behaves correctly, either by writing a test oracle or by acting as one. Yet two oracles can look identical and rest on different ground: one assertion encodes a written specification, another only what the model learned in training. Prior secondary studies sort oracles by form or by technique, rarely by the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted: where its authority comes from. This systematic literature review, reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, screens 2,436 records to 54 included studies, extended by citation searching (snowballing) to 83 in total. We read the corpus along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. Just over half of the corpus reaches a verdict with no specification at all. That is what lets these oracles work on code with no specification to consult, and what leaves a challenged verdict with less to fall back on. Source and mechanism cross-cut rather than coincide, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names how a verdict is produced, not why it should be trusted. Oracle quality is most often judged by resemblance to a known oracle rather than by whether injected faults are caught. The first question to ask of any LLM oracle is therefore what one would point to in defending its verdict. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released.

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical programs written in Python. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python programs into verification-oriented WhyML representations suitable for formal verification, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable users to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correctness of Python programs for hypothesis testing and for meta-analyses.

Environmental monitoring with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) requires route planning methods that maximize covered area while handling energy limits, operational constraints, and geometric complexity. This paper reports the protocol and preliminary results of an ongoing systematic literature review (SLR) on autonomous UAV route planning for coverage-oriented environmental monitoring. The review follows the PRISMA 2020 framework and searches Scopus and Web of Science for studies published between 2015 and 2026. The protocol focuses on path planning, coverage path planning, and informative path planning, with emphasis on algorithmic families, coverage and energy metrics, obstacle handling, geometric environment representations, and environmental constraints. At the current stage, 562 records have been identified, 161 duplicates have been removed, and 401 unique records have been screened by title, abstract, and keywords. From these, 247 studies were retained for full-text eligibility assessment (235 eligible and 12 borderline records to be resolved during full-text review). A preliminary analysis of the retained studies suggests strong concentration on coverage-oriented formulations, multi-UAV coordination, and energy-aware optimization, while fewer studies explicitly address weather, uncertainty, or obstacle-rich environments. Most retained studies rely on simulation-based validation, highlighting a potential simulation-to-reality gap, and recent publications show increasing interest in reinforcement learning, hybrid optimization, and geometry-aware planning. These early findings indicate an active but fragmented research landscape and support the need for a structured synthesis to identify mature techniques and unresolved gaps for realistic environmental monitoring missions.

Detecting mental health disorders in a timely manner is an important societal challenge. NLP and machine learning (ML) methods used to assist with detection rely on data collected primarily from social media. However, such datasets often have sampling biases and inherent ethical and privacy issues. One avenue to overcome these limitations is non-social media data. We present the first comprehensive review of non-social media, free-text datasets for mental health research. We use the PRISMA methodology to conduct our survey and we review datasets available in multiple languages. We find that non-social media free-text based datasets are predominantly focused on English and on detecting depression. These datasets also vary in demographics, platforms, data types, annotation techniques, and methodologies. This systematic review also reveals key gaps and highlights opportunities to develop more diverse, reliable and clinically-relevant resources.

LLM-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly used for automated fact-checking (AFC) and related tasks. By grounding LLM outputs in retrieved evidence, RAG-based systems provide transparent justifications while allowing external information to be updated independently of the underlying model. However, existing approaches often assume retrieved evidence is reliable, although real-world information may be conflicting, outdated, and can originate from unreliable or biased sources. Recent work on source-critical reasoning addresses this challenge through media background checks (MBCs) (Schlichtkrull, 2024), which assess the credibility of evidence sources to support downstream fact verification. However, generating MBCs relies on costly proprietary search APIs, limiting reproducibility. To mitigate this issue, we introduce MEDIAREF, a publicly available knowledge store of web-sourced documents that enables reproducible, low-cost evaluation of MBC generation across 200 media sources. We describe a reproducible methodology for constructing and updating the collection, assess widely used LLMs on the MBC generation task, and demonstrate that MEDIAREF supports higher-quality MBC generation through both automatic and qualitative evaluation.

Proactive robots are increasingly deployed in public environments where people are encountered not as isolated individuals but as members of cohesive social groups. Yet whether the prevailing design paradigm in proactive human-robot interaction (HRI) accounts for the relational structure that defines a group as a social unit remains largely unexamined. Through a systematic review of 63 proactive HRI studies in group settings from 2000 to 2025, we identify a recurring tendency, the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA), in which robots treat co-present people as independent engagement targets. We find that ITA is present in 60.3% of the corpus, with group-aware approaches emerging almost entirely after the robot is already embedded in an ongoing interaction. Critically, how a robot should detect and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before initiating contact remains unaddressed across the corpus. Three failure modes, engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, and bystander neglect, emerge as recurring patterns when proactive robots interact with human groups. These findings reframe proactive HRI in group settings not as an extension of dyadic interaction but as a qualitatively distinct design problem, and they identify the robot's approach to the group during the entry phase as a critical and understudied open challenge.

Rubric-based scoring has become a widely used paradigm in model evaluation, typically with LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) for rubric scoring. However, the reliability of LaaJ for rubric scoring remains underexplored. This concern is especially pronounced in agentic scenarios, where long, complex outputs further challenge reliable scoring. To address this, we conduct a systematic meta-evaluation of LaaJ reliability for rubric verification. We introduce RuVerBench, the first benchmark for assessing LaaJ reliability in rubric verification for agentic scenarios. RuVerBench covers two prevalent agentic domains, deep research and agentic coding, with 2,458 instances, each containing a model-generated output, a rubric, and a human-annotated label indicating whether the output satisfies the rubric. Using RuVerBench, we evaluate numerous frontier LLMs and find that even the most advanced models achieve strong performance but still exhibit substantial noise. We further analyze the impact of key LaaJ strategies, including prompt design, batching, and majority voting, on rubric verification. We find that weaker models are more sensitive to prompt variations, batched verification presents a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, and majority voting yields effective but diminishing returns. We have released our dataset and code to facilitate future research: https://github.com/THU-KEG/RuVerBench.

Social-physical human-robot interaction (spHRI) has grown rapidly across robotics, human-computer interaction, human-robot interaction, and haptics. Yet, fragmented terminology and inconsistent methodologies make systematic synthesis difficult. To support scalable review practices, we evaluated the extent to which small language models (SLMs; < 1.5B parameters) can assist with title and abstract screening for a large spHRI systematic review. While no SLMs matched human reviewers' performance, the models operated locally and screened papers orders of magnitude faster. The combined SLM ensemble identified 39 papers reviewers missed, representing 10.29% of the final relevant dataset. These results demonstrate that SLMs can augment, rather than replace, expert reviewers and make large-scale literature reviews accessible and sustainable.

Vulnerability detection in C/C++ software remains a major security challenge due to code complexity, manual memory management, and the limitations of traditional static analysis. Reinforcement Learning (RL) has emerged as a promising approach, particularly for fuzzing, test generation, program exploration, and, more recently, vulnerability detection and localization. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this work reviews RL techniques for software vulnerability analysis, focusing on C/C++ source code and static analysis. We identified 21 primary studies published between 2015 and 2026 from major scientific databases and complementary searches. We analyze the addressed tasks, algorithms, state-action-reward-environment formulations, code representations, datasets, and evaluation metrics. Results show that 15 studies focus on fuzzing and guided exploration, only 3 on direct vulnerability detection, and just 1 on statement-level localization. Moreover, statically extracted structural representations such as Control Flow Graphs (CFGs) and Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs) are rarely used as agent states, and benchmarks lack comparability. We propose a task- and formulation-oriented taxonomy and identify a key research gap: the absence of RL agents that use source-code CFGs as states to detect and localize vulnerable nodes.

Biomedical researchers increasingly use AI-generated analyses and reports to interpret protein-level signals, but static outputs are often insufficient for research decision-making, where users need to inspect evidence, assess uncertainty, compare mechanisms, and refine hypotheses. We present \textsc{BioInsight}, a multi-agent system that moves from static biomedical report generation to interactive evidence-centered interactive interface generation. Given a disease name, a protein association table, and optional cohort metadata, BioInsight organizes disease-specific evidence through typed intermediate artifacts, including ranked pathways, literature evidence packets, protein-level reasoning notes, citation-grounded reports, dashboard schemas, and rendered interactive interfaces. The system decomposes evidence retrieval from mechanistic reasoning, normalizes citations through deterministic components, and converts the same structured evidence used in the report into an interactive interface. We evaluate BioInsight on standardized biomedical QA, challenging protein-function reasoning, and end-to-end biomedical evidence synthesis. Results show that BioInsight achieves best, and suggest that biomedical AI systems should move beyond text-only and static reports toward provenance-preserving, interactive evidence artifacts.

Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy. However, questions of reliability remain largely unaddressed. In this study, we go beyond quantitative LLM-human agreement metrics and qualitatively investigate how and why LLMs fail. We also propose actionable recommendations. We analyzed disagreements between LLMs and researchers across six software engineering SRs and over 1,000 primary study papers. For each SR, papers were screened independently by human experts and LLMs in zero-shot mode, resulting in Kappa values ranging from 0.52 to 0.77. Qualitative analysis suggests that human-LLM disagreement results from recurring, identifiable causes, such as boundary ambiguity in key terms, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations such as validating semantic understanding before deployment, running multiple LLMs, and focusing validation efforts on borderline cases. Future studies are needed to validate the impact of our recommendations, and community efforts are needed to develop normative guidelines on LLM usage in SRs.

Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442 expert-curated meta-analyses from Nature Portfolio journals. Each entry pairs a research question with PI/ECO criteria, a retrieval corpus of 140k PubMed articles, verified positive studies, hard negatives that are topically similar but PI/ECO-ineligible, and complete search strategies and date bounds. Benchmarking twelve pipeline configurations (nine RAG variants and a protocol-driven agent) reveals a critical screening bottleneck: despite a retrieval ceiling of 90.9% recall at K=200, no system recovers more than 52.7% of ground-truth included literature. Current LLMs fail to reliably separate eligible studies from PI/ECO-failing distractors in pools of comparable topical relevance. Stage-attributed metrics capture where systems succeed and fail; a single end-to-end score does not.

Evaluating Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) models remains challenging because standard assessment relies on isolated rank-based metrics such as MRR, Hits$@$k, and Mean Rank, which often produce conflicting model orderings across datasets. A model that leads on MRR may trail on Hits@1, and strong performance on one dataset may not generalize to another. This fragmentation hinders comparison, enables selective reporting, and obscures real progress. We reframe KGC evaluation as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and present a meta-analysis of seven aggregators across five tests: consistency, cross-dataset stability, metric independence, robustness under noise, and generalizability. Each test is averaged over leave-one-model-out (LOMO) and leave-one-group-out (LOGO) removals so that reliability reflects aggregator behavior across diverse model subsets. Across tail $(h,r,?)$ and relation $(h,?,t)$ prediction, Pareto-optimal analysis identifies Z-score as the most balanced aggregator, which ranks DualE highest for tail prediction and FMS (Flow-Modulated Scoring) highest for relation prediction. A test-sensitivity analysis using the same removals shows that consistency and stability are largely removal-invariant, while generalizability and independence are the most sensitive. The framework resolves evaluation inconsistencies and offers evidence-based guidance for aggregator selection and model benchmarking in KGC.

Systematic reviews rely on forest plots to synthesise quantitative evidence across biomedical studies, but generating them remains a fragmented and labour-intensive process. Researchers must interpret complex clinical texts, manually extract outcome data from trials, define appropriate interventions and comparators, harmonise inconsistent study designs, and carry out meta-analytic computations-typically using specialised software that demands structured inputs and domain expertise. While recent work has demonstrated that large language models can extract study-level data from unstructured text, no existing system automates the complete pipeline from raw documents to synthesised forest plots. To address this gap, we introduce AutoForest, the first end-to-end system that generates publication-ready forest plots directly from biomedical papers. Given one or more study papers, AutoForest automatically suggests ICO (Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) elements, extracts outcome data, performs statistical synthesis, and renders the final forest plot. We describe the system architecture, user interface and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world examples through a user study involving clinicians, showing how AutoForest can accelerate evidence synthesis and substantially lower the barrier to conducting meta-analyses.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied across educational contexts to support learning. One approach to such support is "human-AI collaboration" (also termed "hybrid intelligence"), where human(s) and AI components interact to promote human learning. However, as in human-to-human computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), unstructured interaction does not necessarily produce an effective learning experience. This paper reports a systematic literature review of empirical studies (N=62) on human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence for learning support. The review characterizes collaboration processes, their structures, and contexts of application. It also extracts emerging design knowledge and research gaps. Researchers and technology designers can use these findings as a starting point for structuring more effective AI-enhanced technologies for collaboration, in educational practice and future research.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the current industry standard for grounding AI in real-world facts. Traditional retrieval methods rely on keyword matching and topic proximity, ranking content based on how closely it sounds like the user's query. What they do not measure is how many verified facts the content actually contains. This structural gap, termed the Expert Blindness Effect, causes standard RAG pipelines to consistently bury high-density factual evidence in favor of lexically dominant text on the same topic. To address this gap, this paper introduces Factual Density (FD*), a novel retrieval optimization signal that measures the proportion of verified atomic claims relative to total token count. Using the NexusAgentics Ghost Audit preprocessing pipeline, raw text is scored for factual specificity using probabilistic factuality analysis to filter content before corpus ingestion. An initial formulation introduced a severe document-length confound (Pearson R = -0.8636, p = 2.27e-07). Implementing Z-score normalization within length bins resolved this bias, validating FD* as a length-independent density signal (p = 0.0749). Evaluated against the HealthFC benchmark (750 health claims labeled Supported, Refuted, or No Evidence by medical experts), FD*-optimized retrieval was the only condition to achieve 100% systematic review saturation in top-5 results, surfacing Cochrane evidence that standard cosine similarity ranked outside the top ten. Ground truth verification confirmed 25 mappings across seven HealthFC-supported claims. While full statistical validation across n=50 queries remains future work due to constraints on corpus-benchmark alignment, these findings establish factual density reranking as a low-cost, high-impact intervention for improving factual precision in health RAG architectures.

Remote robotic-assisted endovascular intervention offers a promising approach to reduce clinician radiation exposure and physical strain, while extending specialized vascular care to geographically distant regions. Despite advancements, teleoperated endovascular intervention remains underexplored, especially for time-sensitive interventions like mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke. The aim of the current review was to determine the evidence regarding teleoperated endovascular robotic systems, covering technical feasibility, communication infrastructure, and clinical outcomes. The review further identified research gaps and future directions. Following PRISMA guidelines, 16 studies were included that met the inclusion criteria out of 2501 initial search results. We found that teleoperated catheters and guidewires, driven by mechanical or electromagnetic systems, can be navigated across distances up to 7000 km. With robust communication infrastructure, network latency remained within clinically acceptable limits (30-163 ms). Although initial outcomes highlighted 100% procedural success in small-scale human trials, most evidence stemmed from animal or phantom models. Overall, the findings suggest that teleoperated endovascular intervention can reduce occupational hazards, expand patient access to urgent procedures, and optimize resource allocation. Future research should be conducted in low and middle income countries to demonstrate broader geographical access. Ultimately, multi-center clinical trials are required to validate the safety, efficacy, and generalization in diverse clinical settings.

We preregistered a comparison of two ways to help an LLM answer questions over a small research corpus: a single-round Vector RAG system and an LLM-compiled markdown wiki. Both systems answered the same 13 questions over 24 papers using the same answer-generating model, and their answers were scored by blinded LLM judges. The wiki scored much better at connecting findings across papers, but its advantage in answer organization was not strong after judge adjustment. RAG met the preregistered test for single-fact lookup questions. The clean query-side cost result went against the expected wiki advantage: under the tested setup, the wiki used far more query tokens than RAG, so it could not recover any upfront build cost through cheaper queries. Two exploratory analyses changed how we interpret the result. First, claim-level citation checking favored the wiki: its cited pages more often supported the exact claims being made, even though RAG scored better on the overall groundedness rubric. Second, a decomposition-based RAG variant recovered most of the wiki's advantage on cross-paper synthesis at lower LLM-token cost, but it did not recover the wiki advantage in claim-by-claim citation support. The main conclusion is that grounded research synthesis is not a single capability. Systems can differ in how well they organize evidence, how well their citations support each claim, and how much they cost to run. In this study, no architecture was best on all three.

While the Natural Language Processing community has dedicated significant resources in developing educational technologies (EdTech) that support this shift, it remains unclear whose interests are being best served among the stakeholders of education. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of 204 papers published in venues of the Association for Computational Linguistics' Special Interest Group on Building Educational Applications in 2024 and 2025, and validate these against EdTech papers from the wider ACL Anthology. By examining stakeholder inclusion and the prioritisation of research tasks, our findings reveal a critical tension: a push and pull between private-sector incentives and the foundational needs of educational infrastructure. Our analysis reveals that teachers are systematically under-represented as beneficiaries of research (33.3%) despite being the most affected, that real-world deployment remains rare (9.8%), and that ethical engagement tends toward acknowledgement rather than action. Drawing on exemplary papers in our corpus, we offer concrete recommendations for more responsible EduNLP research practices.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has become a growing research area, yet contributions tend to cluster around specific application domains or examine only one direction of the integration, leaving the broader architectural interplay between the two technologies poorly understood. This work addresses that gap through a structured, bidirectional review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025. We classify contributions along two directions: AI-enhanced DLT, and DLT-enhanced AI. In the first case, we examine how AI techniques improve DLT systems across five layers: data, network, consensus, execution, and application layers. In the second case, we analyse how DLT supports AI systems across five layers: infrastructure, data, model, inference, and application layers, with particular attention to federated learning, model evaluation, and multi-agent coordination. The analysis reveals that most works concentrate on a small subset of layers: execution and consensus for AI-enhanced DLT, data and model for DLT-enhanced AI. Other layers remain comparatively neglected. Despite reported improvements in controlled settings, no study demonstrates deployment at production scale, and the field has not yet offered satisfying answers to fundamental questions around scalability, interoperability, and verifiable execution. We argue that progress will require cross-layer co-design and empirical validation in real-world settings.

Large language models (LLMs) have saturated standard medical benchmarks that test factual recall, yet their ability to perform higher-order reasoning, such as synthesizing evidence from multiple sources, remains critically under-explored. To address this gap, we introduce MedMeta, the first benchmark designed to evaluate an LLM's ability to generate conclusions from medical meta-analyses using only the abstracts of cited studies. MedMeta comprises 81 meta-analyses from PubMed (2018--2025) and evaluates models using two distinct workflows: a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Golden-RAG) setting with ground-truth abstracts, and a Parametric-only approach relying on internal knowledge. Our evaluation framework is validated by a well-structured analysis showing our LLM-as-a-judge protocol strongly aligns with human expert ratings, as evidenced by high Pearson's r correlation (0.81) and Bland-Altman analysis revealing negligible systematic bias, establishing it as a reliable proxy for scalable evaluation. Our findings underscore the critical importance of information grounding: the Golden-RAG workflow consistently and significantly outperforms the Parametric-only approach across models. In contrast, the benefits of domain-specific fine-tuning are marginal and largely neutralized when external material is provided. Furthermore, stress tests show that all models, regardless of architecture, fail to identify and reject negated evidence, highlighting a critical vulnerability in current RAG systems. Notably, even under ideal RAG conditions, current LLMs achieve only slightly above-average performance (~2.7/5.0). MedMeta provides a challenging new benchmark for evidence synthesis and demonstrates that for clinical applications, developing robust RAG systems is a more promising direction than model specialization alone.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses frequently require numerical data that authors report only as figures, yet manual digitisation is slow and does not scale. We present PlotPick, an open-source tool that uses vision-language models (VLMs) to batch-extract structured tabular data from scientific figures. We evaluate six VLMs from three providers on two established chart-to-table benchmarks (ChartX and PlotQA) and compare against the dedicated chart-to-table model DePlot. All six VLMs outperform DePlot on both benchmarks. On ChartX (restricted to bar charts, line charts, box plots, and histograms; n=300), VLMs achieve 88-96% recall versus 71% for DePlot. On PlotQA (n=529), VLMs achieve 86-99% RMSF1 versus 94% for DePlot. The gap is largest on chart types absent from the dedicated models' training data: on box plots, DePlot achieves 24% RMSF1 while VLMs achieve 83-97%. PlotPick is available at https://plotpick.streamlit.app.

Translational medicine turns underspecified development goals into evidence synthesis that must combine literature, trials, patents, and quantitative multi-omics analysis while preserving identifiers, uncertainty, and retrievable provenance. General-purpose foundation models and off-the-shelf tool-augmented or multi-agent systems are not built for this: they tend to produce single-shot answers or run open-endedly, and fall short on the auditable, scenario-specific workflows that heterogeneous biomedical sources demand. This paper introduces Ingenix BioResearcher, a scenario-guided multi-agent system that maps queries to versioned research playbooks, delegates to specialized subagents over 30+ tools and machine-learning endpoints, mixes structured database access with sandboxed code for genome-scale analyses, and applies claim-level multi-model reconciliation before editorial assembly. We evaluate BioResearcher across unit-level capabilities, open-ended biomedical reasoning, and end-to-end clinical discovery. It leads evaluated baselines on 109 single-step tests (83.49% pass rate; 0.892 average score), achieves strong biomedical benchmark performance (89.33% on BixBench-Verified-50 and the top 0.758 mean score on BaisBench Scientific Discovery), and leads on a 30-query clinical end-to-end benchmark with the highest positive hit rate (74.7% $\pm$ 3.3%) and negative clear rate (96.8% $\pm$ 0.2%). These results show broad, competitive performance across unit-level, open-ended, and end-to-end clinical evaluations.

Web accessibility aims to ensure that web content and services are usable by people with diverse abilities. In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly explored to support accessibility-related tasks on the web, such as content generation, issue detection, and remediation. However, little is known about the characteristics of these approaches, the accessibility issues they target, the standards they follow, and how they are evaluated. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of 38 peer-reviewed studies that investigate the use of LLMs in web accessibility contexts. We begin by performing a comprehensive search of scientific publications to identify relevant studies. We then conduct a comparative analysis to examine the accessibility tasks addressed, the LLM models and prompting strategies employed, the system architectures adopted, the accessibility issues and guidelines considered, and the evaluation methods used across studies. Our findings show that most studies apply LLMs to text-centric and structurally explicit accessibility tasks, with WCAG serving as the primary reference framework and limited consideration of cognitive accessibility guidelines (COGA). The reviewed approaches predominantly rely on general-purpose LLMs and prompt-based interactions, while evaluation practices vary widely and often lack direct involvement of users with disabilities. We envision this review as a consolidated reference for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the current landscape of LLM-supported web accessibility, and as a foundation to guide future research and tool development in this area.

Context: Study screening in systematic literature reviews is costly, inconsistency-prone, and risk-asymmetric, since false negatives can compromise validity. Despite rapid uptake of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is limited evidence on how such models behave during the study screening phase, particularly regarding the choice of specific LLMs and their comparison with classical models. Objective: To assess LLM performance and variability in screening, quantify the impact of input metadata (abstract, title, keywords), and compare LLMs with classical classifiers under a shared protocol. Methods: We analyzed 12 LLMs from 4 providers (OpenAI, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Llama) and 4 classical models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Classification, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes) on 2 real Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), totaling 518 papers. The experimental design investigated 3 critical dimensions: (i) LLMs performance variability, (ii) the impact of input feature composition (abstract, title, and keywords) on LLM performance, and (iii) the real gain of using LLMs instead of more traditional classification models. Results: LLMs exhibited substantial heterogeneity and residual non-determinism even at temperature zero. Abstract availability was decisive: removing it consistently degraded performance, while adding title and/or keywords to the abstract yielded no robust gains. Compared to classical models, performance differences were not consistent enough to support generalizable LLM superiority. Discussion: LLM adoption should be justified by operational and governance constraints (reproducibility, cost, metadata availability), supported by pilot validation and explicit reporting of variability and input configuration.

Context: Software vulnerabilities pose significant security threats to software systems, especially as software is increasingly used across many areas of daily life, including health, government, and finance. Recently, transformer-based models have demonstrated promising results in automatic software vulnerability identification due to their robust contextual modelling and representation learning capabilities. Objectives: While numerous systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have examined machine learning and deep learning methods for identifying vulnerabilities, a more transformer-centric analysis remains to be explored. This SLR critically analysed 80 studies published between 2021 and 2025 that utilised transformer models to identify software vulnerabilities. Methods: Using Kitchenhams SLR guidelines, we methodically evaluate current research from various perspectives, encompassing study trends, datasets and sources, programming languages, transformer frameworks, detection detail levels, assessment metrics, reference models, types of vulnerabilities, and experimental configurations. Results: We classify transformer models into encoder, decoder, and combined architectures and analyse both pre-trained and fine-tuned versions utilized on source code, logs, and smart contracts. The results emphasise prevailing research trends, frequently utilised benchmarks, and main baselines. It also uncovers crucial technical issues like data imbalance, interpretability, scalability, and generalization across programming languages. Conclusion: By integrating current evidence and recognising unaddressed research areas, this SLR provides a consolidated resource for researchers and professionals seeking to develop more reliable, precise, and interpretable transformer-based vulnerability identification systems.

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.

Systematic reviews -- which requires comprehensive evidence collection and synthesis from large document corpora in response to targeted research questions -- are foundational in finance, social sciences, and other technical fields. Manual construction of evidence tables is labor-intensive, and recent LLM-based assistants relying on embedding or keyword based search often fail to meet the coverage standards of systematic reviews. We introduce SLIDERS, a novel LLM-based methodology for systematic reviews, by automatically assembling evidence tables tailored to research questions. In addition to extracting structured data from documents, SLIDERS can extract full-text excerpts that serve as direct evidence or as provenance for structured data. Core to SLIDERS is an automated evidence reconciliation agent that writes code to analyze and reconcile extracted evidence, bringing together information fragmented across documents, resolving inconsistencies across excerpts, and synthesizing overlapping findings into a coherent evidence table. In addition, SLIDERS allows users to ask follow-up questions in natural language to further explore the assembled evidence. We evaluate SLIDERS on three systematic-review-style tasks over large document collections. SLIDERS outperforms the best-performing baseline across benchmarks, remains near 90% accuracy across 6M-11M-token corpora. On two new follow-up analysis benchmarks SLIDERS can answer 77.9% and 58.3% followup questions accurately

This paper aims to synthesize current knowledge on generative AI in IT project management using the PRISMA methodology to provide researchers with a comprehensive perspective on techniques, applications, adoption trends, limitations, and integration across project management tools and process groups. The analysis reveals a clear dominance of OpenAI's GPT in the included studies but relying primarily on prompt engineering, suggesting that research in this area remains at an exploratory stage. Finally, it identifies and discusses three promising research directions for AI-enabled project management, including process group-specific AI agents, project role-based AI agents, and hybrid collaborative networks that enable human-guided orchestration.

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.

The integration of Model Predictive Control (MPC) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for constrained decision-making and adaptive control. MPC offers structured optimization, explicit constraint handling, and established stability tools, whereas RL provides data-driven adaptation and performance improvement in the presence of uncertainty and model mismatch. Despite the rapid growth of research on RL--MPC integration, the literature remains fragmented, particularly for control architectures built on linear or linearized predictive models. This paper presents a comprehensive Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of RL--MPC integrations for linear and linearized systems, covering peer-reviewed and formally indexed studies published until 2025. The reviewed studies are organized through a multi-dimensional taxonomy covering RL functional roles, RL algorithm classes, MPC formulations, cost-function structures, and application domains. In addition, a cross-dimensional synthesis is conducted to identify recurring design patterns and reported associations among these dimensions within the reviewed corpus. The review highlights methodological trends, commonly adopted integration strategies, and recurring practical challenges, including computational burden, sample efficiency, robustness, and closed-loop guarantees. The resulting synthesis provides a structured reference for researchers and practitioners seeking to design or analyze RL--MPC architectures based on linear or linearized predictive control formulations.

Adversarial robustness evaluation underpins every claim of trustworthy ML deployment, yet the field suffers from fragmented protocols and undetected gradient masking. We make two contributions. (1) Structured synthesis. We analyze nine peer-reviewed corpus sources (2020--2026) through seven complementary protocols, producing the first end-to-end structured analysis of the field's consensus and unresolved challenges. (2) Auto-ART framework. We introduce Auto-ART, an open-source framework that operationalizes identified gaps: 50+ attacks, 28 defense modules, the Robustness Diagnostic Index (RDI), and gradient-masking detection. It supports multi-norm evaluation (l1/l2/linf/semantic/spatial) and compliance mapping to NIST AI RMF, OWASP LLM Top 10, and the EU AI Act. Empirical validation on RobustBench demonstrates that Auto-ART's pre-screening identifies gradient masking in 92% of flagged cases, and RDI rankings correlate highly with full AutoAttack. Multi-norm evaluation exposes a 23.5 pp gap between average and worst-case robustness on state-of-the-art models. No prior work combines such structured meta-scientific analysis with an executable evaluation framework bridging literature gaps into engineering.

Atypical speech is receiving greater attention in speech technology research, but much of this work unfolds with limited interdisciplinary dialogue. For stuttered speech in particular, it is widely recognised that current speech recognition systems fall short in practice, and current evaluation methods and research priorities are not systematically grounded in end-user experiences and needs. In this work, we analyse these gaps through 1) a scoping review of papers that deal with stuttered speech and 2) a survey of 70 stakeholders, including adults who stutter and speech-language pathologists. By analysing these two perspectives, we propose a taxonomy of stuttered-speech research, identify where current research directions diverge from the needs articulated by stakeholders, and conclude by outlining concrete guidelines and directions towards addressing the real needs of the stuttering community.

Rapid advances in Generative AI are giving rise to increasingly sophisticated Multi-Agent AI (MAAI) systems. While AI fairness has been extensively studied in traditional predictive scenarios, its examination in MAAI remains nascent and fragmented. This scoping review critically synthesizes existing research on fairness in MAAI systems. Through a qualitative content analysis of 23 selected studies, we identify five archetypal approaches. Our findings reveal that fairness in MAAI systems is often addressed superficially, lacks robust normative foundations, and frequently overlooks the complex dynamics introduced by agent autonomy and system-level interactions. We argue that fairness must be embedded structurally throughout the development lifecycle of MAAI, rather than appended as a post-hoc consideration. Meaningful evaluation requires explicit human oversight, normative clarity, and a precise articulation of fairness objectives and beneficiaries. This review provides a foundation for advancing fairness research in MAAI systems by highlighting critical gaps, exposing prevailing limitations, and suggesting pathways.

Software documentation is essential for program comprehension, developer onboarding, code review, and long-term maintenance. Yet producing quality documentation manually is time-consuming and frequently yields incomplete or inconsistent results. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code, helping developers understand code more efficiently, facilitating maintenance, and supporting downstream activities such as defect localization and commit message generation. However, the effectiveness of LLMs in documentation tasks critically depends on how they are prompted. Properly structured instructions can substantially improve model performance, making prompt engineering-the design of input prompts to guide model behavior-a foundational technique in LLM-based software engineering. Approaches such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and zero-shot learning show promise for code summarization, yet current research remains fragmented. There is limited understanding of which prompting strategies work best, for which models, and under what conditions. Moreover, evaluation practices vary widely, with most studies relying on overlap-based metrics that may not capture semantic quality. This systematic literature review consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.

Accurate compensation of brain deformation is critical for reliable image-guided neurosurgery. Surgical manipulation and tumor resection induce tissue motion, causing preoperative planning images to become misaligned with the intraoperative anatomy. In this systematic review, we examine data-driven methods developed between 2020 and 2025 for brain deformation registration and modeling, with a particular focus on learning-based approaches. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for computational methods addressing brain deformation in neurosurgical imaging, resulting in 46 eligible studies. We provide a unified analysis of methodological strategies, including deep learning-based image registration, direct deformation field regression, synthesis-driven multimodal alignment, resection-aware architectures for handling missing correspondences, and hybrid models integrating biomechanical priors. We also examine dataset utilization, evaluation metrics, validation protocols, and the assessment of uncertainty and generalization across studies. While learning-based methods demonstrate promising accuracy and computational efficiency, current approaches remain limited by out-of-distribution robustness, standardized benchmarking, interpretability, and readiness for clinical deployment. Our review highlights these gaps and outlines future directions toward more robust, generalizable, and clinically translatable solutions for neurosurgical guidance. By organizing recent advances and critically assessing evaluation practices, this work provides a comprehensive reference for researchers and clinicians working on data-driven registration and modeling of brain deformation.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine has enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning, a cornerstone of clinical practice. This has catalyzed a shift from single-step answer generation to the development of LLMs explicitly designed for medical reasoning. This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field. We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies (e.g., supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning) and test-time mechanisms (e.g., prompt engineering, multi-agent systems). We analyze how these techniques are applied across different data modalities (text, image, code) and in key clinical applications such as diagnosis, education, and treatment planning. Furthermore, we survey the evolution of evaluation benchmarks from simple accuracy metrics to sophisticated assessments of reasoning quality and visual interpretability. Based on an analysis of 60 seminal studies from 2022-2025, we conclude by identifying critical challenges, including the faithfulness-plausibility gap and the need for native multimodal reasoning, and outlining future directions toward building efficient, robust, and sociotechnically responsible medical AI.

Workflows in drug-target interaction (DTI) assessment require integrating heterogeneous data from predictive models, curated resources, and observations from experimental literature. This evidence can be incomplete or conflicting. DrugAgent is a large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent system focused on DTI evidence integration that integrates outputs from machine learning, knowledge graph, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agents. DrugAgent converts agent outputs into interpretable representations, then summarizes conflict across the evidence. We evaluated DrugAgent on kinase screening data of 900 pairs spanning 178 kinases and 42 inhibitors, and an androgen receptor antagonist screening benchmark. On the kinase dataset, LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation indicated outputs were faithful to input evidence in 98.8% of cases. Biological plausibility of returned summarization was high (scores 3-4 out of 5) across ground-truth classes: 79% of Weak activity labels cases (81% for Moderate/77% Strong); Strong cases received higher scores than Weak/Moderate. Label stability showed 98% agreement across runs. Results on the antagonist benchmark were consistent with the kinase dataset. Retrieved literature provided the greatest benefit when direct drug-target evidence was available, highlighting the importance of evidence availability for RAG-based integration. DrugAgent provides heterogeneous evidence-grounded DTI assessment, complementing standalone DTI prediction. We provide strategies to model agreement, conflict, and uncertainty in biomedical evidence integration. Code: https://github.com/sciluna/DrugAgent.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) for Ghana's 73 living indigenous languages remains deeply fragmented, under-resourced, and heavily skewed toward a single language. We present the first systematic review of the Ghanaian NLP landscape, screening 17,000+ publications across four academic databases to critically synthesize 36 core studies spanning datasets, model architectures, and evaluation paradigms. Our analysis exposes a severe resource imbalance: Twi-centric NLP has grown modestly, driven largely by religious-text alignment and crowdsourcing, while the remaining 70+ languages remain almost entirely unaddressed, and dataset releases, model checkpoints, and evaluation practices remain inconsistent and rarely shared across the field. We translate these findings into a prioritized roadmap targeting Ghana's acute regional constraints, dialectal variation, non-standardized orthographies, and the absence of shared infrastructure, offering a replicable template for systematic review and research prioritization in other low-resource language settings.

The capabilities of generative AI in mathematics education are rapidly evolving, posing significant challenges for research to keep pace. Research syntheses remain scarce and risk being outdated by the time of publication. We present a Living Meta-Analysis (LIMA) on the effects of generative AI-based interventions for learning mathematics. We update the literature base every two months and apply a cumulative Bayesian multilevel meta-regression model. This paper reports results from the fifth version, including 34 studies, 7 of which were newly included since the fourth version. Results indicate an increasingly positive effect (g = 0.57, CrI [0.36, 0.79]) and no evidence in favor of a publication bias. Moderator analyses indicate that effects vary by integration mode and intervention duration: Larger effects were observed when generative AI supplemented teacher instruction and in longer interventions. Moderate evidence for stronger effects was observed in studies involving younger learners and more recent technology. For other moderators, evidence is still inconclusive.