CLDec 30, 2025
LimAgents: Multi-Agent LLMs for Generating Research LimitationsIbrahim Al Azher, Zhishuai Guo, Hamed Alhoori
Identifying and articulating limitations is essential for transparent and rigorous scientific research. However, zero-shot large language models (LLMs) approach often produce superficial or general limitation statements (e.g., dataset bias or generalizability). They usually repeat limitations reported by authors without looking at deeper methodological issues and contextual gaps. This problem is made worse because many authors disclose only partial or trivial limitations. We propose LimAgents, a multi-agent LLM framework for generating substantive limitations. LimAgents integrates OpenReview comments and author-stated limitations to provide stronger ground truth. It also uses cited and citing papers to capture broader contextual weaknesses. In this setup, different agents have specific roles as sequential role: some extract explicit limitations, others analyze methodological gaps, some simulate the viewpoint of a peer reviewer, and a citation agent places the work within the larger body of literature. A Judge agent refines their outputs, and a Master agent consolidates them into a clear set. This structure allows for systematic identification of explicit, implicit, peer review-focused, and literature-informed limitations. Moreover, traditional NLP metrics like BLEU, ROUGE, and cosine similarity rely heavily on n-gram or embedding overlap. They often overlook semantically similar limitations. To address this, we introduce a pointwise evaluation protocol that uses an LLM-as-a-Judge to measure coverage more accurately. Experiments show that LimAgents substantially improve performance. The RAG + multi-agent GPT-4o mini configuration achieves a +15.51% coverage gain over zero-shot baselines, while the Llama 3 8B multi-agent setup yields a +4.41% improvement.
DLMay 22, 2025
BAGELS: Benchmarking the Automated Generation and Extraction of Limitations from Scholarly TextIbrahim Al Azher, Miftahul Jannat Mokarrama, Zhishuai Guo et al.
In scientific research, ``limitations'' refer to the shortcomings, constraints, or weaknesses of a study. A transparent reporting of such limitations can enhance the quality and reproducibility of research and improve public trust in science. However, authors often underreport limitations in their papers and rely on hedging strategies to meet editorial requirements at the expense of readers' clarity and confidence. This tendency, combined with the surge in scientific publications, has created a pressing need for automated approaches to extract and generate limitations from scholarly papers. To address this need, we present a full architecture for computational analysis of research limitations. Specifically, we (1) create a dataset of limitations from ACL, NeurIPS, and PeerJ papers by extracting them from the text and supplementing them with external reviews; (2) we propose methods to automatically generate limitations using a novel Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) technique; (3) we design a fine-grained evaluation framework for generated limitations, along with a meta-evaluation of these techniques.
17.5CRApr 2
From Theory to Practice: Code Generation Using LLMs for CAPEC and CWE FrameworksMurtuza Shahzad, Joseph Wilson, Ibrahim Al Azher et al.
The increasing complexity and volume of software systems have heightened the importance of identifying and mitigating security vulnerabilities. The existing software vulnerability datasets frequently fall short in providing comprehensive, detailed code snippets explicitly linked to specific vulnerability descriptions, reducing their utility for advanced research and hindering efforts to develop a deeper understanding of security vulnerabilities. To address this challenge, we present a novel dataset that provides examples of vulnerable code snippets corresponding to Common Attack Pattern Enumerations and Classifications (CAPEC) and Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) descriptions. By employing the capabilities of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models, we have developed a robust methodology for generating these examples. Our approach utilizes GPT-4o, Llama and Claude models to generate code snippets that exhibit specific vulnerabilities as described in CAPEC and CWE documentation. This dataset not only enhances the understanding of security vulnerabilities in code but also serves as a valuable resource for training machine learning models focused on automatic vulnerability detection and remediation. Preliminary evaluations suggest that the dataset generated by Large Language Models demonstrates high accuracy and can serve as a reliable reference for vulnerability identification systems. We found consistent results across the three models, with 0.98 cosine similarity among codes. The final dataset comprises 615 CAPEC code snippets in three programming languages: Java, Python, and JavaScript, making it one of the most extensive and diverse resources in this domain.
CLMar 20, 2025
FutureGen: A RAG-based Approach to Generate the Future Work of Scientific ArticleIbrahim Al Azher, Miftahul Jannat Mokarrama, Zhishuai Guo et al.
The Future Work section of a scientific article outlines potential research directions by identifying gaps and limitations of a current study. This section serves as a valuable resource for early-career researchers seeking unexplored areas and experienced researchers looking for new projects or collaborations. In this study, we generate future work suggestions from a scientific article. To enrich the generation process with broader insights and reduce the chance of missing important research directions, we use context from related papers using RAG. We experimented with various Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated into Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). We incorporate an LLM feedback mechanism to enhance the quality of the generated content and introduce an LLM-as-a-judge framework for robust evaluation, assessing key aspects such as novelty, hallucination, and feasibility. Our results demonstrate that the RAG-based approach using GPT-4o mini, combined with an LLM feedback mechanism, outperforms other methods based on both qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Moreover, we conduct a human evaluation to assess the LLM as an extractor, generator, and feedback provider.