SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Miguel Zabaleta

Publications and source records attributed to Miguel Zabaleta.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PRISMA-LLM: An Empirical Reporting Framework for AI-Assisted Systematic Reviews

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.

cs.SE

SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews

Systematic reviews require sustained human judgment across thousands of records, yet existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically examine review stages in isolation. We introduce SciLitBench, a multi-stage benchmark spanning title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction, with 42,981 retrieved records, 1,012 full texts, and annotations for 888 included papers. Across 22 open-weight LLMs from six model families, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria improve title and abstract screening $F_2$ by 28.8\%, while researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15\%. Data extraction reveals a different reliability regime: performance declines from 0.97 accuracy for publication year to 0.37 Jaccard overlap for computational approach, while the strongest models recover only 30\% of annotated evaluation evidence and 25\% of limitations. SciLitBench identifies a practical boundary between high-recall screening and evidence-complete extraction and provides a reproducible resource for evaluating LLM-assisted evidence synthesis.

cs.AI

Simulating Tabular Datasets through LLMs to Rapidly Explore Hypotheses about Real-World Entities

Do horror writers have worse childhoods than other writers? Though biographical details are known about many writers, quantitatively exploring such a qualitative hypothesis requires significant human effort, e.g. to sift through many biographies and interviews of writers and to iteratively search for quantitative features that reflect what is qualitatively of interest. This paper explores the potential to quickly prototype these kinds of hypotheses through (1) applying LLMs to estimate properties of concrete entities like specific people, companies, books, kinds of animals, and countries; (2) performing off-the-shelf analysis methods to reveal possible relationships among such properties (e.g. linear regression); and towards further automation, (3) applying LLMs to suggest the quantitative properties themselves that could help ground a particular qualitative hypothesis (e.g. number of adverse childhood events, in the context of the running example). The hope is to allow sifting through hypotheses more quickly through collaboration between human and machine. Our experiments highlight that indeed, LLMs can serve as useful estimators of tabular data about specific entities across a range of domains, and that such estimations improve with model scale. Further, initial experiments demonstrate the potential of LLMs to map a qualitative hypothesis of interest to relevant concrete variables that the LLM can then estimate. The conclusion is that LLMs offer intriguing potential to help illuminate scientifically interesting patterns latent within the internet-scale data they are trained upon.

cs.AI