Efficient Literature Survey

Efficient Literature Survey Workflow

Core Assumptions

• 文献类型：用户提供的文件是学术论文、专著或学位论文。非学术内容（新闻报道、法律文件、产品手册）需标记为 non-academic 并降级至 P2 仅摘要处理。
• 语言：支持中英混合文献。输出语言以 Stage 0 用户配置为准。
• 格式：PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD, EPUB。CAJ 需先转 PDF。
• Token 策略：从全文通读（5M+ 字符）压缩至定向阅读（~30k 字符），节省 99%+。

Triggers

• "帮我读文献", "写绪论和综述", "快速理解大量文献", "节省token读论文"
• "literature review", "thesis introduction", "batch read papers"
• User has a folder of literature files and needs structured academic output

When NOT to use: < 5 papers, single-paper summary only, or purely non-academic files.

Starting Mode

• Mode A (default): Run Stage 1 script immediately → show results table → collect remaining Stage 0 configs.
• Mode B: If user proactively gives all 5 configs, skip straight to Stage 1.
• Mode C (Fast Mode): Triggered ONLY when (a) all 5 configs are provided, AND (b) user explicitly says "直接走 / 全速推进 / 不用确认". In this mode:
  • Stage 1 results are shown; if user does not object, auto-advance to Stage 2.
  • Stage 2 cluster map is shown; auto-advance to Stage 3 (merged checkpoint).
  • Stage 3 reading summary is shown; MUST pause for user confirmation before Stage 3.5.
  • Stage 3.5 outline is shown; MUST pause for user confirmation before Stage 4.
  • Stage 0 and Stage 2 checkpoints remain; Stage 2→3 checkpoints are merged into one "map + plan" summary.
• Mode D (Semi-Fast Mode): Triggered when (a) all 5 configs are provided, AND (b) user does NOT explicitly say "逐阶段确认". In this mode:
  • Stage 1 results are shown; auto-advance to Stage 2.
  • Stage 2 cluster map + reading plan are merged into ONE output; MUST pause for user confirmation before Stage 3.
  • Stage 3 reading summary is shown; MUST pause for user confirmation before Stage 3.5.
  • Stage 3.5 outline is shown; MUST pause for user confirmation before Stage 4.
  • Critical rule: Even in Mode D, the agent MUST NOT proceed from Stage 2→3 or Stage 3.5→4 without explicit user confirmation. These are non-negotiable checkpoints.

Stage 0: User Configuration (REQUIRED — hold here until all 5 collected)

Rule: Do NOT proceed to Stage 4 until all 5 are collected. If custom structure chosen but not yet provided, hold at Stage 0.

Stage 1: Batch Extract Metadata

Step 0: Environment Pre-Check (REQUIRED)

Before running extraction, verify the environment to avoid runtime failures:

python extract_literature_metadata.py <folder_path> --env-check

This checks:

• Dependencies installed (PyPDF2, pdfplumber, python-docx, etc.)
• Terminal encoding (Windows GBK → UTF-8 warning)
• Encrypted PDFs, scanned-image PDFs, CAJ files

If missing deps: pip install PyPDF2 PyCryptodome pdfplumber python-docx ebooklib beautifulsoup4 If Windows GBK: run chcp 65001 or set PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 If encrypted PDFs detected: distinguish light vs full encryption (see Decision points below).

Step 1: Run Extraction

Run extract_literature_metadata.py <folder_path> [--keywords "kw1,kw2"] to extract:

• Title, author, year, page count, word count
• Journal/volume/issue/page-range/DOI (heuristic detection)
• Scanned-image flag, encrypted flag (with tier: light/full), first-page preview text
• Monograph TOC + keyword-matched chapters (for PDFs >100 pages)
• Duplicate detection

Output: _literature_extraction.json + _literature_report.md + optional _literature_references.bib.

Incremental re-use: If _literature_extraction.json already exists in the output folder and files are unchanged (SHA-256 cache), skip re-extraction and proceed to Stage 2. Do NOT force re-running Stage 1 unless user explicitly requests it.

Decision points:

• Scanned/image PDF → warn user; suggest marker / nougat / tesseract OCR.
• Encrypted PDF → tiered handling:
  • Light encryption (encryption_level: light): PyPDF2 flags encrypted but pdfplumber can read text normally. Script auto-decrypts with empty password. Proceed normally.
  • Full encryption (encryption_level: full): Both PyPDF2 and pdfplumber fail. Flag and ask user to decrypt manually.
• CAJ detected → instruct conversion to PDF.
• Monograph (>100 pages) with TOC match → report matched chapters with page ranges in Stage 1 output. These become P0 core reading targets.

• 40 refs → batch by subfolder or cluster.

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: Present Stage 1 results table. WAIT for user acknowledgment before Stage 2.

Stage 2: Build Literature Map (Cluster + Prioritize)

Inputs: Stage 1 metadata (titles, previews) + Stage 0 research positioning.

Step 1: Thematic Clustering (MANDATORY)

Group references into 5-8 thematic clusters. Each cluster name MUST include 1-2 representative keywords in parentheses.

Example — Clustering 5 papers on LLM research:

Rule: A paper belongs to exactly one primary cluster. If cross-cutting, note secondary cluster in note.

Step 2: Relevance Scoring (MANDATORY)

Score each cluster using the user's Stage 0 research positioning keywords as explicit criteria.

Rule: Every score MUST reference at least one keyword from the user's Stage 0 positioning. Example: "Cluster 3 scored Direct because it addresses 'chain-of-thought reasoning', which matches user's keyword 'reasoning enhancement'."

[CONTEXT_OVERFLOW] guard: >40 refs → filter by format or cluster in batches.

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: Present complete map (clusters, scores, reading strategy). WAIT for confirmation.

Stage 3: Targeted Reading by Tier

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: Present reading plan (which P0/P1/P2, at what depth). WAIT for confirmation.

Mode C exception: If user already confirmed the Stage 2 cluster map with "直接走", merge this checkpoint into Stage 2's summary. Present the reading plan as part of the cluster map output, then auto-advance.

Mode D exception: The merged "cluster map + reading plan" output in Mode D MUST still wait for user confirmation before proceeding to actual reading execution. Do NOT silently execute Stage 3 reading just because the plan was shown.

P0 (Core) — 5-8 refs

1. Read first 2,000 chars for structure.
2. If ≤50,000 chars → full text.
3. If >50,000 chars → abstract + conclusion + 2-3 key chapters.
4. Extract: core argument, 2-3 direct quotations, theoretical lineage, methodology.

P1 (Support) — 15-20 refs

1. First 2,000 chars (abstract + intro).
2. Last 1,500 chars (conclusion).
3. If keywords appear in preview → read matched sections (±500 chars).
4. Extract: 2-3 sentences on contribution + connection to research gap.

P2 (Background) — remaining refs

1. First 1,000 chars (abstract).
2. One-sentence positioning note.

[CONTEXT_OVERFLOW] guard: Combined P0+P1 >100k words → downgrade all P1 to abstract-only; keep top 5 P0 only.

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: After Stage 3, present brief reading summary. WAIT before Stage 4.

Stage 3.5: Outline Confirmation (MANDATORY)

Purpose: Prevent high rework cost if user wants structural changes after 6,800+ words are written. The user said "我不着急 一步步来" — this stage honors that intent.

Input: Stage 3 reading summaries + Stage 0 chapter structure + monograph chapter mappings (if any).

Output: A bullet-point level outline with:

• Section headings (matching user's Stage 0 structure exactly)
• Core argument per section (1-2 sentences)
• Citation numbers planned for each section
• Estimated word count per section
• Monograph chapter-to-section mappings (e.g. "专著《X》第3章 → 本节理论框架")

Format:

## 写作大纲（待确认）

### 1. 研究背景与问题提出（约 800 字）
- 论点：XXX 领域的发展引出 YYY 核心问题
- 引用：[1], [3], [5]

### 2. 文献综述 — 子主题 A（约 1200 字）
- 论点：早期研究侧重... 近期突破在于...
- 引用：[2], [4], [7]
- 专著映射：专著《X》第3章"理论框架" → 本节理论基础

...

### N. 研究缺口与本研究定位（约 600 字）
- 论点：现有研究存在三方面局限 → 本研究的切入点
- 引用：[6], [8]

**预估总字数**：6800 字

Rules:

1. Do NOT write full prose in this stage — only bullet points.
2. Every planned citation MUST map to a real reference from Stage 1 results.
3. If user provided custom chapter structure in Stage 0, use it exactly; do not invent new headings.
4. For monographs with chapter_texts, note which chapters feed which sections.

Mode C/D exception: Even in Fast / Semi-Fast modes, Stage 3.5 is NON-SKIPPABLE. Auto-advance is NOT permitted here. The merged checkpoint from Stage 2→3 MUST end at Stage 3.5, not Stage 4.

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: Present outline. WAIT for explicit confirmation or revision request.

• If user says "确认 / 可以 / 没问题 / 就这么写" → proceed to Stage 4.
• If user requests changes → revise outline and re-present. Do NOT proceed to Stage 4 until user confirms.

Stage 4: Structured Writing

Write introduction and literature review per user's Stage 0 chapter structure. Do NOT use any default template unless explicitly chosen.

Writing Rules (MANDATORY)

1. Strict chapter structure: Use user's exact heading hierarchy.
2. Citation format: Use user's required style (APA/MLA/GB/numbered).
3. Source anchoring:
   • P0 refs → deep theoretical anchoring and primary claims
   • P1 refs → empirical support and secondary claims
   • P2 refs → breadth or historical positioning only
4. Every claim must be traceable to a specific reference.
5. Research gap: Final section MUST explicitly name the gap and state how user's study fills it.
6. Output language: Strictly follow Stage 0 config.
7. Temporal evolution: Within each cluster, organize references chronologically or by theoretical lineage. Show: early work → turning points → recent advances.
8. Critical analysis (branch by output_type):
   • review article: In EACH cluster paragraph, inline at least ONE conflict, methodological limitation, or contradictory finding. Place critique within the cluster's narrative flow.
   • thesis (default): Critique MAY be concentrated in a dedicated "文献评述 / Literature Critique" section (typically after all cluster subsections). Each cluster paragraph focuses on chronological evolution and thematic synthesis. The unified critique section identifies cross-cluster gaps, methodological limitations, and contradictory findings across the field. Brief inline critique per cluster is optional.
   • Mixed: Brief inline critique per cluster + a unified critique section for cross-cutting gaps.
9. Survey vs. original distinction: High-citation survey papers MUST be explicitly flagged with 〔综述〕 immediately after the first in-text citation. Example: "郭小宇等〔综述〕对 X 领域进行了系统梳理……". Original experimental papers carry no flag.

Few-Shot: Writing a Cluster Paragraph

User positioning: "Research on chain-of-thought prompting in large language models"

Good example (follows rules 7+8):

Early efforts to elicit reasoning from LLMs relied on few-shot exemplars without explicit intermediate steps (Brown et al., 2020). The breakthrough came with chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, which demonstrated that inserting reasoning chains into prompts significantly improves arithmetic and commonsense reasoning (Wei et al., 2022). However, subsequent work revealed a critical tension: while CoT improves performance on complex tasks, it can amplify biases present in the training data (Turpin et al., 2023), and its effectiveness diminishes sharply in low-resource languages (Shi et al., 2022). These conflicting findings highlight the need for bias-aware CoT mechanisms — the gap this study addresses by proposing [your method].

Good example — thesis style (chronological synthesis, critique deferred to unified section):

早期研究通过少量示例激发 LLM 推理能力，但未显式构建中间步骤 (Brown et al., 2020)。Wei 等 (2022) 提出思维链 (CoT) 提示，在算术与常识推理任务上取得突破。此后，零样本 CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) 与自一致性解码 (Wang et al., 2023) 进一步扩展了该范式。郭小宇等〔综述〕系统梳理了 CoT 在复杂推理中的应用现状。上述研究共同推动了从"直接预测"到"逐步推理"的范式转变，为本研究提出的偏差感知 CoT 机制奠定了理论基础。

（文献评述节统一批判：然而，现有 CoT 方法存在两方面局限：一是可能放大训练数据中的固有偏见 (Turpin et al., 2023)；二是在低资源语言中效果显著下降 (Shi et al., 2022)。这些矛盾发现表明，亟需构建兼顾公平性与跨语言泛化能力的 CoT 框架——这正是本研究的切入点。）

Bad example (violates rules 7+8 — flat listing, no conflict):

Wei et al. (2022) proposed chain-of-thought prompting. Kojima et al. (2022) used zero-shot CoT. Wang et al. (2023) improved it with self-consistency. These methods all improve reasoning.

[USER_CHECKPOINT]: After Stage 4, present draft and ask for revision feedback (structure, citations, gap analysis).

Append Mode: Adding New References

When user says "add more papers" or "I found 5 new refs":

1. Incremental extraction: Run Stage 1 script. SHA-256 cache ensures unchanged files are skipped.
2. Re-cluster assessment: New refs go through Stage 2. Existing clusters may be renamed or split if new refs reveal a missing theme.
3. Minimal rewrite: Update literature map with new refs marked 〔新增〕. Revise Stage 4 draft ONLY in affected clusters. Do NOT rewrite unaffected sections.
4. Citation renumbering: If using numbered citations, renumber globally. Present a diff of citation changes.

Tool Use

Bash — Run extraction script

# Environment pre-check (run first)
python extract_literature_metadata.py <folder_path> --env-check

# Full extraction
python extract_literature_metadata.py <folder_path> [--max-pages N] [--citation-style STYLE] [--output-dir PATH] [--bibtex] [--no-recursive]

Read — Targeted reading by tier

Write — Save outputs

• _literature_map.md — clusters, scores, reading plan
• _thesis_introduction.md / _literature_review.md — Stage 4 output

Quick Reference

Common Mistakes

• Reading everything — Extract metadata first. Opening every file burns context.
• No clustering — Without thematic clusters, review becomes a list of summaries, not an argument.
• Clustering without positioning — Relevance scoring is guesswork without user's research keywords.
• Guessing structure — Ask for exact headings in Stage 0. Mismatched structure = full rewrite.
• Ignoring weak refs — Tangential refs must be flagged and potentially excluded.
• Skipping gap analysis — Stage 4 MUST end with gap + positioning.
• Skipping Stage 0 — Writing without all 5 configs guarantees mismatch.
• Auto-advancing — Each [USER_CHECKPOINT] exists for a reason. Do NOT silently proceed (except in Mode C with explicit user consent).
• Flat chronological listing — Violates Rule 7. Must show evolution, not just sequence.
• No critical tension — Violates Rule 8. A review without critique is a bibliography, not scholarship.
• 不分输出类型硬套批判规则 — thesis 和 review article 的批判分布不同，生搬硬套会破坏行文流畅度。
• 忽略环境差异 — Windows GBK 编码、加密 PDF、缺失依赖会导致 Stage 1 批量失败。必须先做环境预检。

Reusable Tool

extract_literature_metadata.py — Batch-extracts titles, authors, page/word counts, text volume, scanned-page detection, bibliographic metadata (journal/vol/issue/DOI), duplicate detection, and formatted citations. Outputs JSON + Markdown + optional BibTeX.

Dependencies: PyPDF2 PyCryptodome pdfplumber python-docx ebooklib beautifulsoup4

Real-World Impact

30 mixed Chinese/English refs (3 monographs 200+ pages):

• Full-text: ~5M+ chars
• Targeted reading: ~30k chars (99.4% savings)
• Output: 1,796-char introduction + 3,767-char review with 35 citations, 8 clusters