Papers › LUMEN: Cost-Transparent Multi-Agent Pipeline for Automated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
LUMEN: Cost-Transparent Multi-Agent Pipeline for Automated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yen-Hsun Huang, Yu-Shiou Lin
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) remain the gold standard for evidence synthesis, yet completing one typically requires 67 weeks and substantial expert effort. Recent large language model (LLM) systems have demonstrated strong performance on individual SR phases - screening (otto-SR: 96.7% sensitivity), extraction (Gartlehner et al.: 91.0% accuracy), and search (TrialMind: 0.83 recall) - but no study has reported what it actually costs to run an end-to-end pipeline, how cost distributes across phases, or how architectural choices affect the cost-quality trade-off. We present LUMEN, an open-source multi-agent pipeline that automates six SR/MA phases using 11 specialized LLM agents with deliberate model routing. We evaluate LUMEN on seven datasets: five self-conducted domain reviews (psychiatry, psychology, surgery, vaccinology, cardiology) and two SYNERGY screening benchmarks. Across 13 ground-truth-comparable outcomes, LUMEN achieves 100% directional agreement with published meta-analyses, with effect sizes within 1% for homogeneous study designs. The primary contribution is the first empirical cost and operational characterization of such a pipeline: a complete review costs 19 to 29 USD (median 22.65 USD), with title-abstract screening and data extraction together dominating expenditure. A three-arm extraction ablation reveals a phase-dependent architecture reversal: multi-agent design hurts screening but is essential for extraction, producing 5.7x more poolable analyses than single-model alternatives while eliminating clinically dangerous direction errors. A two-dataset screening benchmark demonstrates that model ranking is domain-dependent and not transferable across review topics. All code and cost logs are publicly available.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.28362")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 6 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from YHHuan/LUMEN. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
783701d818ef4860 · report
76360dc63382c49e · report
b4a7196f4bd175c3 · report
389539993fc5042a · report
2db0b2df337136a5 · report
d27ac718c7c49bf3 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.28362, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections