Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

CHIME: LLM-Assisted Hierarchical Organization of Scientific Studies for Literature Review Support

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 2407.16148 v1 pith:S7JDS2EO submitted 2024-07-23 cs.CL

CHIME: LLM-Assisted Hierarchical Organization of Scientific Studies for Literature Review Support

classification cs.CL
keywords hierarchiesliteraturestudiescategoriesreviewassignmentchimehierarchical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Literature review requires researchers to synthesize a large amount of information and is increasingly challenging as the scientific literature expands. In this work, we investigate the potential of LLMs for producing hierarchical organizations of scientific studies to assist researchers with literature review. We define hierarchical organizations as tree structures where nodes refer to topical categories and every node is linked to the studies assigned to that category. Our naive LLM-based pipeline for hierarchy generation from a set of studies produces promising yet imperfect hierarchies, motivating us to collect CHIME, an expert-curated dataset for this task focused on biomedicine. Given the challenging and time-consuming nature of building hierarchies from scratch, we use a human-in-the-loop process in which experts correct errors (both links between categories and study assignment) in LLM-generated hierarchies. CHIME contains 2,174 LLM-generated hierarchies covering 472 topics, and expert-corrected hierarchies for a subset of 100 topics. Expert corrections allow us to quantify LLM performance, and we find that while they are quite good at generating and organizing categories, their assignment of studies to categories could be improved. We attempt to train a corrector model with human feedback which improves study assignment by 12.6 F1 points. We release our dataset and models to encourage research on developing better assistive tools for literature review.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. LLM Jaggedness Unlocks Scientific Creativity

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Jagged capabilities in LLMs for scientific idea generation can be leveraged through inference-time ensembles to outperform individual models.

  2. Attribution Gradients: Incrementally Unfolding Citations for Critical Examination of Attributed AI Answers

    cs.HC 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Attribution gradients consolidate citation evidence and enable incremental unfolding of secondary sources, leading to deeper engagement in a lab study of critical reading tasks for AI answers.

  3. LLM Jaggedness Unlocks Scientific Creativity

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLMs exhibit jagged scientific creativity across models, prompts, and domains, and this unevenness can be leveraged via model ensembles to outperform any single model on idea generation.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.