<quick_start> To generate a literature review:
code
/asta:literature-review "federated learning for healthcare applications"
Optional depth levels:
- •
--depth quick(5-10 papers, fast overview) - •
--depth standard(15-25 papers, balanced) - •
--depth comprehensive(30+ papers, thorough) </quick_start>
<success_criteria>
- •Identifies and synthesizes key papers on the topic
- •Groups findings into coherent themes
- •Notes methodological approaches and trends
- •Identifies gaps and future research directions
- •Provides proper citations for all claims </success_criteria>
Depth Guidelines:
| Depth | Papers | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| quick | 5-10 | Initial exploration |
| standard | 15-25 | Research planning |
| comprehensive | 30+ | Thesis/publication prep |
- •Use
mcp__asta__snippet_searchwith the main topic to find relevant passages - •Identify key papers from the results
- •Use
mcp__asta__get_paperon top papers to get abstracts and TLDRs
Phase 2: Citation Expansion
- •For seminal papers (high citation count), use
mcp__asta__get_paper_citationsto find follow-on work - •Use
mcp__asta__get_paper_referenceson key papers to identify foundational work - •Track the citation network to understand field structure
Phase 3: Synthesis
- •Group papers into thematic clusters based on:
- •Methodological approach
- •Application domain
- •Theoretical contribution
- •Identify common findings and consensus
- •Note contradictions or ongoing debates
- •Identify gaps where research is sparse
Phase 4: Reporting
- •Structure findings into clear sections
- •Provide citations for all claims
- •Highlight most influential papers
- •Suggest future research directions </workflow>
<output_format> Structure the review as:
markdown
# Literature Review: {Topic}
## Overview
{Brief introduction to the field and scope of this review - 1-2 paragraphs}
## Key Themes
### {Theme 1 Name}
{Summary of papers and findings related to this theme}
- {Paper1} ({Year}): {Key finding}
- {Paper2} ({Year}): {Key finding}
### {Theme 2 Name}
{Summary}
## Methodological Approaches
{Common methods, datasets, evaluation metrics across the field}
## Key Findings
{Synthesized findings noting consensus and disagreements}
## Research Gaps
{Identified gaps and opportunities for future work}
## Seminal Papers
{List of most influential papers to read first, with brief justification}
## References
{Formatted citations for all papers mentioned}
</output_format>
<examples> <example number="1"> <input>/asta:literature-review "explainability in deep learning" --depth quick</input> <output> # Literature Review: Explainability in Deep LearningOverview
Explainability in deep learning has emerged as a critical research area, driven by the need to understand and trust AI systems in high-stakes applications. This review covers key approaches including attention visualization, feature attribution, and concept-based explanations.
Key Themes
Gradient-Based Methods
Post-hoc explanation methods that compute input feature importance:
- •Simonyan et al. (2014): Introduced saliency maps via gradient computation
- •Sundararajan et al. (2017): Integrated Gradients with axiomatic foundations
- •Selvaraju et al. (2017): Grad-CAM for visual explanations in CNNs
Attention-Based Interpretability
Using attention weights as explanations:
- •Bahdanau et al. (2015): Attention mechanism for sequence-to-sequence models
- •Jain & Wallace (2019): Challenged attention as faithful explanation
Research Gaps
- •Limited work on explanations for generative models
- •Lack of standardized evaluation metrics for explanation quality
- •Few studies on user comprehension of explanations
Seminal Papers
- •"Attention Is All You Need" - Foundation of attention mechanisms
- •"LIME" - Model-agnostic local explanations
- •"Integrated Gradients" - Axiomatic attribution method </output>
<anti_patterns>
- •Don't fabricate papers - Only cite papers found through Asta tools
- •Don't oversimplify - Capture nuance and disagreements in the field
- •Don't ignore recency - Balance seminal work with recent developments
- •Don't skip citations - Every claim should be backed by a specific paper </anti_patterns>