Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews

Summary

arXiv:2609.05505v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systematic reviews require sustained human judgment across thousands of records, yet existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically examine review stages in isolation. We introduce SciLitBench, a multi-stage benchmark spanning title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction, with 42,981 retrieved records, 1,012 full texts, and annotations for 888 included papers. Across 22 open-weight LLMs from six model families, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria improve title and abstract screening $F_2$ by 28.8\%, while researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15\%. Data extraction reveals a different reliability regime: performance declines from 0.97 accuracy for publicatio…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin
SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 29 Aug 2026]

Title:SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews

View a PDF of the paper titled SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews, by Miguel Zabaleta and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Systematic reviews require sustained human judgment across thousands of records, yet existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically examine review stages in isolation. We introduce SciLitBench, a multi-stage benchmark spanning title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction, with 42,981 retrieved records, 1,012 full texts, and annotations for 888 included papers. Across 22 open-weight LLMs from six model families, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria improve title and abstract screening $F_2$ by 28.8\%, while researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15\%. Data extraction reveals a different reliability regime: performance declines from 0.97 accuracy for publication year to 0.37 Jaccard overlap for computational approach, while the strongest models recover only 30\% of annotated evaluation evidence and 25\% of limitations. SciLitBench identifies a practical boundary between high-recall screening and evidence-complete extraction and provides a reproducible resource for evaluating LLM-assisted evidence synthesis.

Comments: 22 pages, 6 figures, and 5 tables. Data and code are available at this https URL

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.05505 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.05505v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05505

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Miguel Zabaleta [view email] [v1] Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:04:34 UTC (3,833 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled SciLitBench: Benchmark and Design Principles for LLM-Powered Systematic Literature Reviews, by Miguel Zabaleta and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.05505v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systematic reviews require sustained human judgment across thousands of records, yet existing evaluations of large language models…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.