Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet?

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 2412.15249 v2 pith:X57KVVGV submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DLcs.LG

LitLLMs, LLMs for Literature Review: Are we there yet?

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.DLcs.LG
keywords literaturellmsreviewabstractcomponentsresearchreviewswriting
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 reviews are an essential component of scientific research, but they remain time-intensive and challenging to write, especially due to the recent influx of research papers. This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract. We decompose the task into two components: 1. Retrieving related works given a query abstract, and 2. Writing a literature review based on the retrieved results. We analyze how effective LLMs are for both components. For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper and then retrieves potentially relevant papers by querying an external knowledge base. Additionally, we study a prompting-based re-ranking mechanism with attribution and show that re-ranking doubles the normalized recall compared to naive search methods, while providing insights into the LLM's decision-making process. In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review. To evaluate different LLM-based literature review methods, we create test sets from arXiv papers using a protocol designed for rolling use with newly released LLMs to avoid test set contamination in zero-shot evaluations. We release this evaluation protocol to promote additional research and development in this regard. Our empirical results suggest that LLMs show promising potential for writing literature reviews when the task is decomposed into smaller components of retrieval and planning. Our project page including a demonstration system and toolkit can be accessed here: https://litllm.github.io.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Benchmarking AI Agents for Addressing Scientific Challenges Across Scales

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SciAgentArena is a new interactive benchmark for AI agents on scientific tasks that finds agents handle clear data-analysis workflows but struggle with novel insights, self-directed exploration, and open-ended questions.

  2. Can LLMs extract scientific consensus? A case study in high-temperature superconductivity

    cs.DL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLMs recover coherent, interpretable structures from HTS literature including family-dependent mechanisms and temporal belief evolution via a constructed knowledge graph.

  3. Compare: A Framework for Scientific Comparisons

    cs.DL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Compare is a RAG-based system that generates qualitative, citation-supported comparisons of scientific contributions at institution and publication granularity.

  4. Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Headache specialists preferred their own literature summaries over those from Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1 in a blinded evaluation, though AI summaries were sometimes indistinguishable.