Abstract

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of modern science, synthesising evidence from published research to provide the highest level of research evidence in a field. The process includes categorising studies on a number of different dimensions which is laborious and time consuming. Automatic approaches are beginning to be explored but the complexity of the task means we are currently far from a satisfactory solution. In this paper, we test different annotation scheme-agnostic methods for automatic NLP paper categorisation for systematic reviews, and test them on two tasks: (i) annotating NLP papers for categories of reported controlled-text generation methods, and (ii) annotating NLP papers for categories of reported human evaluations. We find that reasoning-enhanced fine-tuning combined with DAPO reinforcement learning rewarding both correctness and output format substantially improves the performance of LLMs (by up to +53.8 points), even when they have been pre-trained to perform reasoning, and cuts time required for annotation by around 80% in a human-in-the-loop setting.