The creation of systematic literature reviews (SLR) is critical for analyzing the landscape of a research field and guiding future research directions. However, retrieving and filtering the literature corpus for an SLR is highly time-consuming and requires extensive manual effort, as keyword-based searches in digital libraries often return numerous irrelevant publications. In this work, we propose a pipeline leveraging multiple large language models (LLMs), classifying papers based on descriptive prompts and deciding jointly using a consensus scheme. The entire process is human-supervised and interactively controlled via our open-source visual analytics web interface, LLMSurver, which enables real-time inspection and modification of model outputs. We evaluate our approach using ground-truth data from a recent SLR comprising over 8,000 candidate papers, benchmarking both open and commercial state-of-the-art LLMs from mid-2024 and fall 2025. Results demonstrate that our pipeline significantly reduces manual effort while achieving lower error rates than single human annotators. Furthermore, modern open-source models prove sufficient for this task, making the method accessible and cost-effective. Overall, our work demonstrates how responsible human-AI collaboration can accelerate and enhance systematic literature reviews within academic workflows.

We propose an automated pipeline for performing literature reviews using semantic similarity. Unlike traditional systematic review systems or optimization based methods, this work emphasizes minimal overhead and high relevance by using transformer based embeddings and cosine similarity. By providing a paper title and abstract, it generates relevant keywords, fetches relevant papers from open access repository, and ranks them based on their semantic closeness to the input. Three embedding models were evaluated. A statistical thresholding approach is then applied to filter relevant papers, enabling an effective literature review pipeline. Despite the absence of heuristic feedback or ground truth relevance labels, the proposed system shows promise as a scalable and practical tool for preliminary research and exploratory analysis.

Large Language models have demonstrated promising performance in research ideation across scientific domains. Hypothesis development, the process of generating a highly specific declarative statement connecting a research idea with empirical validation, has received relatively less attention. Existing approaches trivially deploy retrieval augmentation and focus only on the quality of the final output ignoring the underlying reasoning process behind ideation. We present $\texttt{HypER}$ ($\textbf{Hyp}$othesis Generation with $\textbf{E}$xplanation and $\textbf{R}$easoning), a small language model (SLM) trained for literature-guided reasoning and evidence-based hypothesis generation. $\texttt{HypER}$ is trained in a multi-task setting to discriminate between valid and invalid scientific reasoning chains in presence of controlled distractions. We find that $\texttt{HypER}$ outperformes the base model, distinguishing valid from invalid reasoning chains (+22\% average absolute F1), generates better evidence-grounded hypotheses (0.327 vs. 0.305 base model) with high feasibility and impact as judged by human experts ($>$3.5 on 5-point Likert scale).

We thank all the reviewers for their feedback and pointers to relevant papers. This includes (Kendall et al., 2018), where they learn Kendall et al. 2018), we consider different loss functions on the same output space. There are specific reasons we did not use several multi-task learning algorithms mentioned by REV4 as baselines. Kendall et al. (2018) assumes that all base losses are applications of the same function (max likelihood in this case) We don't see how this method can be extended to our scenario where base losses do not necessarily Moreover, our regularization admits a very different nature. However, directly normalizing the base losses was sufficient for our experiments.

Automated scientific idea generation systems have made remarkable progress, yet the automatic evaluation of idea novelty remains a critical and underexplored challenge. Manual evaluation of novelty through literature review is labor-intensive, prone to error due to subjectivity, and impractical at scale. To address these issues, we propose the Idea Novelty Checker, an LLM-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework that leverages a two-stage retrieve-then-rerank approach. The Idea Novelty Checker first collects a broad set of relevant papers using keyword and snippet-based retrieval, then refines this collection through embedding-based filtering followed by facet-based LLM re-ranking. It incorporates expert-labeled examples to guide the system in comparing papers for novelty evaluation and in generating literature-grounded reasoning. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that our novelty checker achieves approximately 13% higher agreement than existing approaches. Ablation studies further showcases the importance of the facet-based re-ranker in identifying the most relevant literature for novelty evaluation.

Automatically grading the diverse range of question types in high school physics problem is a challenge that requires automated grading techniques from different fields. We report the findings of a Systematic Literature Review of potential physics grading techniques. We propose a multi-modal AI grading framework to address these challenges and examine our framework in light of Australia's AI Ethical Principles.

Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community. With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge. The primary issue lies in generating comprehensive, accurate, and reasoning-consistent review comments that align with human reviewers' judgments. In this paper, we address this challenge by proposing ReviewAgents, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate academic paper reviews. We first introduce a novel dataset, Review-CoT, consisting of 142k review comments, designed for training LLM agents. This dataset emulates the structured reasoning process of human reviewers-summarizing the paper, referencing relevant works, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and generating a review conclusion. Building upon this, we train LLM reviewer agents capable of structured reasoning using a relevant-paper-aware training method. Furthermore, we construct ReviewAgents, a multi-role, multi-LLM agent review framework, to enhance the review comment generation process. Additionally, we propose ReviewBench, a benchmark for evaluating the review comments generated by LLMs. Our experimental results on ReviewBench demonstrate that while existing LLMs exhibit a certain degree of potential for automating the review process, there remains a gap when compared to human-generated reviews. Moreover, our ReviewAgents framework further narrows this gap, outperforming advanced LLMs in generating review comments.

We introduce PaSa, an advanced Paper Search agent powered by large language models. PaSa can autonomously make a series of decisions, including invoking search tools, reading papers, and selecting relevant references, to ultimately obtain comprehensive and accurate results for complex scholarly queries. We optimize PaSa using reinforcement learning with a synthetic dataset, AutoScholarQuery, which includes 35k fine-grained academic queries and corresponding papers sourced from top-tier AI conference publications. Additionally, we develop RealScholarQuery, a benchmark collecting real-world academic queries to assess PaSa performance in more realistic scenarios. Despite being trained on synthetic data, PaSa significantly outperforms existing baselines on RealScholarQuery, including Google, Google Scholar, Google with GPT-4 for paraphrased queries, chatGPT (search-enabled GPT-4o), GPT-o1, and PaSa-GPT-4o (PaSa implemented by prompting GPT-4o). Notably, PaSa-7B surpasses the best Google-based baseline, Google with GPT-4o, by 37.78% in recall@20 and 39.90% in recall@50. It also exceeds PaSa-GPT-4o by 30.36% in recall and 4.25% in precision. Model, datasets, and code are available at https://github.com/bytedance/pasa.

A good idea should be relevant to the scientist's interests and novel within the scientific community. Research papers are a major source of inspiration for relevant and novel ideas, as they expose scientists to relevant concepts to re-combine and form new ideas [4, 21, 36]. However, generating relevant and novel scientific ideas by recombining concepts from research papers is difficult for multiple reasons. For one, scientists must wade through an ever-expanding scientific literature to find relevant concepts [2, 19]. Moreover, the phenomenon of fixation biases scientists against considering more diverse concepts and concept recombinations for their research; instead, they are predisposed to thinking about a problem in familiar terms, which hinders the stimulation of novel ideas [11, 37]. Even if a scientist manages to identify interesting concept recombinations to form potential research ideas, assessing the ideas' novelty in comparison to the existing literature is a cumbersome yet critical task. Building a fully or semi-automated ideation system has been an ambition of researchers for decades, and Scideatorbuilds on strong prior work from many other researchers, filling a unique niche. We extend a line of work that presents systems for finding analogies between research papers [4, 21, 36], adopting their facet-based framework but using modern large language model (LLM) methods to identify relevant facets and perform facet recombinations. We are also inspired by recent work showing that LLMs have promise to assist ideation in domains outside science, helping people to generate more ideas [6] and more diverse ideas [27, 40].