Preliminary Guidelines for Using and Evaluating GenAI Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviews

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

LLM-Based Test Oracles: Source-of-Authority Taxonomy -- A Systematic Literature Review

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to produce test oracles, the part of a test that decides whether observed behavior is correct. Yet a clear account of where these oracles draw their authority is missing. Prior secondary studies organize the area by oracle form or by LLM technique. None organizes it by the source of the verdict's authority, the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted. This article presents a systematic literature review, conducted and reported under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. From 2,436 records, an LLM pre-filter followed by independent dual human screening (reviewer agreement, a Cohen's kappa of 0.79) and full-text assessment yielded 54 included studies. We analyze these along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. We characterize the landscape of domains, languages, models, and adaptation strategies. Specification-derived authority, though the most common single source, covers about half of the studies (28 of 54). The remaining 26 reach a verdict with no specification at all. The source of authority and the adjudication mechanism cross-cut: the same source is checked by several mechanisms and one mechanism serves several sources, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names a mechanism rather than a basis for trust. We further report how these oracles are evaluated and how they fail, and read the sparse and empty regions of the taxonomy as a research agenda. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released as supplementary material.

Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to streamline and potentially automate many research processes, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). This study reports an LLM pipeline development for extracting model-relevant information from 536 peer-reviewed agent-based modeling papers. We compare the results with those of a human-conducted SLR. Our results show paper-level accuracies of approximately 77.95% for GPT-4.1 and 81.67% for GPT-5.0. Field-level accuracy ranges from 32.40% to 100.00%, with more complex or subjective fields performing less reliably. Importantly, we find that agreement between LLMs is a potential indicator of output quality: low agreement may signal hallucinations, whereas high agreement combined with low accuracy may point to noise or errors in the human dataset. Overall, our study provides practical insights into prompt development and highlights both the potential and limitations of using LLMs for full-scale SLRs in the modeling and simulation domain.