Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study evaluates frontier LLMs in extracting nuanced data from scientific literature, demonstrating that models can autonomously generate effective prompts while still requiring human oversight to resolve hallucinations and validate references. The findings establish a practical workflow for scaling scientific data curation where experts define evidence standards and AI handles repetitive extraction tasks under audit.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Self-prompting and cross-model consensus enable reproducible data extraction from scientific literature with large language models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.19025v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Accurately extracting nuanced, contextualized data from research articles is laborious and time intensive. Here, we investigate the performance of frontier, browser-based large language models (LLMs) to extract highly contextualized information. We demonstrate four escalating workflows, 1) given an expert curated prompt and research articles, most frontier LLMs perform well at data extraction, however can struggle with interpreting scientific context and nuance, 2) given simple instructions, LLMs can author their own prompts which were almost as eNective as expert-written prompts, 3) autonomous discovery of research literature was diNicult, agents either missed or hallucinated references, and 4) LLMs can create new datasets from published guidelines that closely match human-expert judges, but still require a human-in-the-loop. Together, these findings define an auditable division of labour in which experts specify the evidence standard, models cross-check repeated extractions and researchers resolve disputed cases, providing a practical route to scaling scientific data curation without relinquishing expert oversight.

Abstract:Accurately extracting nuanced, contextualized data from research articles is laborious and time intensive. Here, we investigate the performance of frontier, browser-based large language models (LLMs) to extract highly contextualized information. We demonstrate four escalating workflows, 1) given an expert curated prompt and research articles, most frontier LLMs perform well at data extraction, however can struggle with interpreting scientific context and nuance, 2) given simple instructions, LLMs can author their own prompts which were almost as eNective as expert-written prompts, 3) autonomous discovery of research literature was diNicult, agents either missed or hallucinated references, and 4) LLMs can create new datasets from published guidelines that closely match human-expert judges, but still require a human-in-the-loop. Together, these findings define an auditable division of labour in which experts specify the evidence standard, models cross-check repeated extractions and researchers resolve disputed cases, providing a practical route to scaling scientific data curation without relinquishing expert oversight.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Databases (cs.DB)

arXiv:2608.19025 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.19025v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19025 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 247 words

Related coverage