Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Automated Literature Review Using NLP Techniques and LLM-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation

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 2411.18583 v1 pith:FOYTI3OL submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IRcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IRcs.LG
keywords languagemodelliteraturegenerationlargeresearchretrieval-augmentedreviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This research presents and compares multiple approaches to automate the generation of literature reviews using several Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with a Large Language Model (LLM). The ever-increasing number of research articles provides a huge challenge for manual literature review. It has resulted in an increased demand for automation. Developing a system capable of automatically generating the literature reviews from only the PDF files as input is the primary objective of this research work. The effectiveness of several Natural Language Processing (NLP) strategies, such as the frequency-based method (spaCy), the transformer model (Simple T5), and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with Large Language Model (GPT-3.5-turbo), is evaluated to meet the primary objective. The SciTLDR dataset is chosen for this research experiment and three distinct techniques are utilized to implement three different systems for auto-generating the literature reviews. The ROUGE scores are used for the evaluation of all three systems. Based on the evaluation, the Large Language Model GPT-3.5-turbo achieved the highest ROUGE-1 score, 0.364. The transformer model comes in second place and spaCy is at the last position. Finally, a graphical user interface is created for the best system based on the large language model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Whose Name Comes Up? II: Benchmarking and Intervention-Based Auditing of LLM-Based Scholar Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark auditing LLM-based scholar recommendation across 22 models shows that inference-time interventions (temperature, constrained prompting, RAG) trade off technical quality against social representation ra...

  2. Who Gets Recommended? Investigating Gender, Race, and Country Disparities in Paper Recommendations from Large Language Models

    cs.IR 2024-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM recommendations of important AI research favor recent, well-cited, team-authored papers, but do not measurably over-represent male, white, or developed-country scholars relative to a human-curated benchmark.

  3. How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.

Pith tools