Pith. sign in

REVIEW 13 cited by

AutoSurvey: Large Language Models Can Automatically Write Surveys

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.10252 v2 pith:EROTVZ6O submitted 2024-06-10 cs.IR cs.AIcs.CL

AutoSurvey: Large Language Models Can Automatically Write Surveys

classification cs.IR cs.AIcs.CL
keywords autosurveychallengesevaluationsurveyautomatingcomprehensivecreationlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper introduces AutoSurvey, a speedy and well-organized methodology for automating the creation of comprehensive literature surveys in rapidly evolving fields like artificial intelligence. Traditional survey paper creation faces challenges due to the vast volume and complexity of information, prompting the need for efficient survey methods. While large language models (LLMs) offer promise in automating this process, challenges such as context window limitations, parametric knowledge constraints, and the lack of evaluation benchmarks remain. AutoSurvey addresses these challenges through a systematic approach that involves initial retrieval and outline generation, subsection drafting by specialized LLMs, integration and refinement, and rigorous evaluation and iteration. Our contributions include a comprehensive solution to the survey problem, a reliable evaluation method, and experimental validation demonstrating AutoSurvey's effectiveness.We open our resources at \url{https://github.com/AutoSurveys/AutoSurvey}.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MetaSyn: A Benchmark for LLM Agents on Meta-Analysis Articles from Nature Portfolio

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    MetaSyn benchmark shows LLM pipelines recover at most 52.7% of ground-truth included studies due to screening failures on PI/ECO eligibility, despite 90.9% retrieval recall at K=200.

  2. The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

    cs.AI 2024-08 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The AI Scientist framework enables LLMs to independently conduct the full scientific process from idea generation to paper writing and review, demonstrated across three ML subfields with papers costing under $15 each.

  3. MetaSyn: A Benchmark for LLM Agents on Meta-Analysis Articles from Nature Portfolio

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MetaSyn benchmark shows LLM agents recover at most 52.7% of relevant studies in meta-analysis pipelines due to failures in PI/ECO-based screening despite strong retrieval.

  4. MetaSyn: A Benchmark for LLM Agents on Meta-Analysis Articles from Nature Portfolio

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM agents reach 90.9% retrieval recall at K=200 but recover at most 52.7% of ground-truth included studies because they cannot reliably apply PI/ECO eligibility criteria to topically similar distractors.

  5. MetaSyn: A Benchmark for LLM Agents on Meta-Analysis Articles from Nature Portfolio

    cs.CL 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    MetaSyn is a stage-level benchmark of 442 meta-analyses showing LLM agents retrieve up to 90.9% of eligible studies but include at most 52.7% in their final reports.

  6. RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation

    cs.DL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RWGBench is a citation-centric benchmark for related work generation built from 40k CS papers and a 100-paper test set, with multi-dimensional metrics that better match human expert judgment than standard similarity scores.

  7. RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation

    cs.DL 2026-05 accept novelty 6.5

    RWGBench evaluates related-work generation as citation decision-making (selection, placement, organization, discourse) rather than text similarity, exposing retrieval and generation failures that standard metrics miss.

  8. RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation

    cs.DL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    RWGBench measures related-work generation by citation choices, and shows citation-focused metrics expose failures that text-similarity and LLM-judge scores miss.

  9. DeepSurvey: Enhancing Analytical Depth and Citation Reliability in Automated Survey Generation

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DeepSurvey introduces an agentic system for automated survey generation that improves depth through full-text keynotes, cross-paper clustering, and code analysis, while boosting citation reliability via graph expansio...

  10. CogGen: A Cognitively Inspired Recursive Framework for Deep Research Report Generation

    cs.MA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CogGen uses a cognitively inspired recursive architecture with AVR for multimodal content to generate deep research reports that achieve SOTA among open-source systems and surpass Gemini Deep Research on a new OWID benchmark.

  11. RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation

    cs.DL 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.5

    RWGBench evaluates related-work generation as citation decision-making with multi-dimensional metrics that track expert judgment better than ROUGE/BERTScore.

  12. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.

  13. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    AI can generate research artifacts faster than it can verify them, so across all eight lifecycle stages the credible deployment mode is human-governed collaboration rather than full autonomy.