pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27610 · v1 · pith:FCO26ABFnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.AI· cs.HC

Eliot: Interactively underline{E}xploring Fast-Changing Scientific underline{Li}terature Trends with underline{O}nline Daunderline{t}a and Learning

Bernardo A. Denkvitts , Nitin Gupta , Biplav Srivastava This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 15:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.AIcs.HC
keywords literature explorationquery-time clusteringarXiv trendstopic visualizationinteractive systemsdocument embeddings
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eliot retrieves arXiv papers on demand, clusters them into themes, and displays year-by-year distributions to make literature trends traceable.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Eliot as an interactive system that takes a user's query and filters, pulls matching arXiv papers at runtime, embeds their titles and abstracts, reduces dimensions, clusters the results, labels each cluster with representative keywords, and plots the publication years inside each cluster. This approach removes the need for pre-built taxonomies or domain-specific code by performing the analysis fresh for every query. An offline study across eight arXiv categories tested combinations of embeddings, reducers, and clustering methods and settled on MiniLM embeddings, 10-dimensional UMAP, and agglomerative clustering as a workable default based on intrinsic metrics. A scenario survey found participants judged the resulting cluster labels meaningful in 85 percent of cases, and a focus group indicated the tool is especially useful for quick, auditable overviews of rapidly shifting technical areas.

Core claim

Eliot shows that query-time retrieval followed by embedding-based clustering and temporal visualization can produce interpretable themes and trend views for any arXiv search without relying on hand-crafted taxonomies or fixed scripts, with the chosen pipeline of MiniLM embeddings, UMAP, and agglomerative clustering performing adequately across domains in offline tests and receiving positive interpretability ratings from users.

What carries the argument

The query-time clustering pipeline that embeds titles and abstracts with MiniLM, reduces to 10 dimensions with UMAP, applies agglomerative clustering, extracts keywords per cluster, and renders publication-year histograms for each cluster.

Load-bearing premise

That good scores on offline clustering metrics and high ratings in scenario surveys will translate into actual usefulness when researchers use the system for their own open-ended literature questions.

What would settle it

A study in which domain experts perform the same literature-trend task once with Eliot and once with standard search tools, then compare the accuracy and completeness of the trends they identify.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27610 by Bernardo A. Denkvitts, Biplav Srivastava, Nitin Gupta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Eliot user interface, shown across four screenshots of a single scrollable application. (1) The search panel with default run configurations. (2) Auto-detected cluster overview, showing representative keywords for 8 of 14 discovered clusters (the full set is accessible via ‘Show All’). (3) Temporal interactive scatter plot showing the evolution of research topics over time across clusters. (4) Paginate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System pipeline overview. (1) The tool supports multiple keywords, both single-word and multi-word expressions. (2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid growth of scientific publishing has made it increasingly difficult to track how fast-moving areas evolve. Search engines and LLM-based assistants retrieve or summarize papers, but often hide how the corpus was selected, organized, or connected to temporal patterns. We present $\texttt{Eliot}$, a publicly deployed interactive system for traceable exploration of evolving scientific literature. Motivated by two studies on Large Language Models (LLMs) and Automated Planning and Scheduling (APS), $\texttt{Eliot}$ generalizes literature-evolution analysis beyond hand-built taxonomies and domain-specific scripts. Given explicit query terms and filters, it retrieves arXiv papers at query time, represents each paper by title and abstract, clusters the corpus into themes, assigns representative keywords, and visualizes each cluster's publication-year distribution. We evaluate $\texttt{Eliot}$ as both an applied system and an interactive research aid. An offline configuration study across eight arXiv domains compares document representations, dimensionality reduction methods, and clustering algorithms using intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics; the results support MiniLM embeddings with 10-dimensional UMAP and Agglomerative Clustering as a practical default. A scenario-based survey and expert focus group assess interpretability and use contexts: participants rated cluster labels as meaningful in 85% of scenario responses, and feedback indicated that $\texttt{Eliot}$ is most valuable for auditable overviews of rapidly changing technical areas. These results suggest that query-time clustering and temporal inspection can complement search and generation tools by helping researchers inspect and refine the evidence behind literature trends.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Eliot, a publicly deployed interactive system for traceable exploration of evolving scientific literature. Given user query terms and filters, it retrieves arXiv papers at query time, represents papers by title and abstract, clusters the corpus into themes, assigns representative keywords, and visualizes each cluster's publication-year distribution. An offline configuration study across eight arXiv domains compares document representations, dimensionality reduction, and clustering algorithms using intrinsic metrics and selects MiniLM embeddings with 10-dimensional UMAP and Agglomerative Clustering as a practical default. A scenario-based survey and expert focus group report that participants rated cluster labels as meaningful in 85% of responses and indicate value for auditable overviews of rapidly changing areas.

Significance. If the evaluation holds, the work provides a generalizable, query-time alternative to hand-built taxonomies or domain-specific scripts for literature-evolution analysis. The offline comparison supplies concrete evidence for a default pipeline, and the human evaluation suggests practical utility for inspecting temporal patterns in fast-moving fields, complementing search and generation tools.

major comments (2)
  1. [Offline configuration study and human evaluation] Offline configuration study: the pipeline is designated the practical default solely on the basis of intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics across eight domains. The subsequent human scenario survey (85% meaningful labels) and focus group are performed exclusively on this single selected configuration; no ablation compares human interpretability ratings across alternative representation/reduction/clustering choices, and no correlation is reported between the metric scores and the human judgments. This leaves the central claim that the metric-chosen default is reliable for user-facing interpretability resting on an untested proxy assumption.
  2. [Human evaluation / scenario-based survey] Scenario-based survey: the abstract and evaluation section report concrete numbers (85% meaningful labels) but supply no details on participant count, exact definitions of 'meaningful', statistical tests, scenario construction, or potential confounds. These omissions prevent assessment of the robustness and generalizability of the human evaluation results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction / motivation] The motivation paragraph references 'two studies on LLMs and APS' but does not indicate how their specific findings shaped the system architecture or evaluation design.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarification on our evaluation design while committing to revisions that improve transparency without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Offline configuration study: the pipeline is designated the practical default solely on the basis of intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics across eight domains. The subsequent human scenario survey (85% meaningful labels) and focus group are performed exclusively on this single selected configuration; no ablation compares human interpretability ratings across alternative representation/reduction/clustering choices, and no correlation is reported between the metric scores and the human judgments. This leaves the central claim that the metric-chosen default is reliable for user-facing interpretability resting on an untested proxy assumption.

    Authors: Intrinsic metrics such as topic coherence are established proxies for human interpretability in the clustering and topic modeling literature, with prior studies demonstrating their correlation to human judgments across domains. Our offline study across eight arXiv domains was intended to identify a practical, generalizable default pipeline rather than to validate the metrics themselves. The human evaluation then confirmed the utility of the deployed system. We acknowledge that an explicit correlation analysis or human ablation would further strengthen the proxy link; in revision we will add a dedicated discussion section citing supporting literature on metric validity and noting this as a limitation, along with any post-hoc analysis feasible from collected data. Full human ablations across configurations remain outside the current scope due to participant recruitment costs. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Scenario-based survey: the abstract and evaluation section report concrete numbers (85% meaningful labels) but supply no details on participant count, exact definitions of 'meaningful', statistical tests, scenario construction, or potential confounds. These omissions prevent assessment of the robustness and generalizability of the human evaluation results.

    Authors: We will revise the human evaluation section to include the exact participant counts for both the scenario-based survey and expert focus group, the operational definition of 'meaningful' used in the rating protocol, the statistical tests applied to the reported percentages, a description of scenario construction and selection criteria, and an explicit discussion of potential confounds such as participant expertise or interface effects. These details were condensed for the initial submission but are documented in our study materials and will be reported in full to enable assessment of robustness and generalizability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical configuration study is independent of target claims

full rationale

The paper presents an implemented interactive system whose pipeline default is chosen via an explicit offline comparison across eight domains using intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics; a separate scenario survey then rates the selected configuration. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations appear. The central claims rest on reported empirical results rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction, making the evaluation chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the system relies on standard, previously published embedding and clustering methods whose hyperparameters were chosen via the reported offline study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5841 in / 1177 out tokens · 35302 ms · 2026-06-29T15:27:52.107981+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Akari Asai et al. 2024. Openscholar: synthesizing scientific literature with retrieval-augmented lms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14199

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scibert: a pretrained language model for scientific text. (2019). arXiv: 1903.10676. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1903. 10676

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903 2019

  3. [3]

    Bezdek, Robert Ehrlich, and William Full

    James C. Bezdek, Robert Ehrlich, and William Full. 1984. Fcm: the fuzzy c- means clustering algorithm.Computers & Geosciences, 10, 2, 191–203. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0098-3004(84)90020-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0098-3004(84)90020-7 1984

  4. [4]

    Jagdev Bhogal, Andrew MacFarlane, and Peter Smith. 2007. A review of on- tology based query expansion.Information processing & management, 43, 4, 866–886

    2007

  5. [5]

    Weizhen Bian, Siyan Liu, Yubo Zhou, Dezhi Chen, Yijie Liao, Zhenzhen Fan, and Aobo Wang. 2024. Intellectseeker: a personalized literature management system with the probabilistic model and large language model. InInternational Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management. Springer, 270– 282

    2024

  6. [6]

    Tadeusz Caliński and Jerzy Harabasz. 1974. A dendrite method for cluster analysis.Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3, 1, 1–27

    1974

  7. [7]

    Chaomei Chen. 2006. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. en.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 3, (Feb. 2006), 359–377. doi:10.1002/ asi.20317

    2006

  8. [8]

    Mohamed Cherradi and Anass El Haddadi. 2024. Exploration of Scientific Documents through Unsupervised Learning-Based Segmentation Techniques. Seminars in Medical Writing and Education, 3, (Apr. 2024), 68. doi:10.56294/ mw202468

    2024

  9. [9]

    Consensus. 2026. How Consensus works. Retrieved May 13, 2026 from https: //help.consensus.app/en/articles/9922673-how-consensus-works

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    David L Davies and Donald W Bouldin. 1979. A cluster separation measure. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2, 224–227

    1979

  11. [11]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). Association for Compu...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  12. [12]

    Elicit. 2026. Systematic literature reviews. Retrieved May 13, 2026 from https: //elicit.com/solutions/literature-review

    2026

  13. [13]

    Google Scholar. 2025. Scholar Labs: an AI powered scholar search. (Nov. 18, 2025). Retrieved May 13, 2026 from https://scholar.googleblog.com/2025/11/ scholar-labs-ai-powered-scholar-search.html

    2025

  14. [14]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class- based TF-IDF procedure. (2022). arXiv: 2203.05794. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203. 05794

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203 2022

  15. [15]

    Hanson, Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Paolo Crosetto, and Dan Brockington

    Mark A. Hanson, Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Paolo Crosetto, and Dan Brockington

  16. [16]

    en.Quantitative Science Studies, 5, 4, 823–843

    The strain on scientific publishing. en.Quantitative Science Studies, 5, 4, 823–843. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327

    work page doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327

  17. [17]

    Thomas Hartke and Joshua Ramette. 2024. Benchmarking the undermind search assistant. Retrieved Oct. 10, 2024 from https://www.undermind.ai/static/ Undermind_whitepaper.pdf

    2024

  18. [18]

    url: https://streamlit.io

    [SW] Streamlit Inc., Streamlit: A faster way to build and share data apps 2019. url: https://streamlit.io

    2019

  19. [19]

    Uri Katz, Mosh Levy, and Yoav Goldberg. 2024. Knowledge navigator: llm- guided browsing framework for exploratory search in scientific literature. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 8838– 8855

    2024

  20. [20]

    Jakub Lála, Odhran O’Donoghue, Aleksandar Shtedritski, Sam Cox, Samuel G Rodriques, and Andrew D White. 2023. Paperqa: retrieval-augmented genera- tive agent for scientific research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07559

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Litmaps. 2026. Litmaps for researchers. Retrieved May 13, 2026 from https: //www.litmaps.com/about/for-researchers

    2026

  22. [22]

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2018. UMAP: Uniform Man- ifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. (2018). arXiv: 1802.03426. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.03426 2018

  23. [23]

    James B McQueen. 1967. Some methods of classification and analysis of mul- tivariate observations. InProc. of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Math. Stat. and Prob.281–297

    1967

  24. [24]

    Melkamu Abay Mersha, Mesay Gemeda yigezu, and Jugal Kalita. 2024. Semantic- Driven Topic Modeling Using Transformer-Based Embeddings and Clustering Algorithms. (2024). arXiv: 2410.00134. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.00134

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00134 2024

  25. [25]

    George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english.Communications of the ACM, 38, 11, 39–41

    1995

  26. [26]

    Josh M Nicholson, Milo Mordaunt, Patrice Lopez, Ashish Uppala, Domenic Rosati, Neves P Rodrigues, Peter Grabitz, and Sean C Rife. 2021. Scite: a smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning.Quantitative science studies, 2, 3, 882–898

    2021

  27. [27]

    openRxiv. 2026. medRxiv: the preprint server for health sciences. Accessed 2026-05-18. (2026). https://www.medrxiv.org/

    2026

  28. [28]

    Vishal Pallagani, Nitin Gupta, Bharath Chandra Muppasani, and Biplav Srivas- tava. 2025. Revisiting llms in planning from literature review: a semi-automated analysis approach and evolving categories representing shifting perspectives. InProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Sched- ulingnumber 1. Vol. 35, 386–390

    2025

  29. [29]

    Vishal Pallagani et al. 2024. On the prospects of incorporating large language models (llms) in automated planning and scheduling (aps). InProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Vol. 34, 432–444

    2024

  30. [30]

    Barbara Probierz, Jan Kozak, and Anita Hrabia. 2022. Clustering of scientific articles using natural language processing. en.Procedia Computer Science, 207, 3449–3458. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.403

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.403 2022

  31. [31]

    Shahzad Qaiser and Ramsha Ali. 2018. Text Mining: Use of TF-IDF to Exam- ine the Relevance of Words to Documents.International Journal of Computer Applications, 181, 1, (July 2018), 25–29. doi:10.5120/ijca2018917395

    work page doi:10.5120/ijca2018917395 2018

  32. [32]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. en. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 3980–3990....

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2019

  33. [33]

    ResearchGate GmbH. 2026. ResearchGate. Professional network for scientists and researchers. Accessed 2026-05-18. (2026). https://www.researchgate.net/

    2026

  34. [34]

    ResearchRabbit. 2026. ResearchRabbit: AI tool for smarter, faster literature reviews. Retrieved May 13, 2026 from https://www.researchrabbit.ai/

    2026

  35. [35]

    Michael Röder, Andreas Both, and Alexander Hinneburg. 2015. Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. InProceedings of the eighth ACM interna- tional conference on Web search and data mining, 399–408

    2015

  36. [36]

    Peter J Rousseeuw. 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis.Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 20, 53–65

    1987

  37. [37]

    Phillip Schneider and Florian Matthes. 2024. Conversational Exploratory Search of Scholarly Publications Using Knowledge Graphs. (2024). arXiv: 2410.00427. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.00427

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00427 2024

  38. [38]

    [SW] Lukas Schwab, arxiv.py: Python Wrapper for the arXiv API 2026.url: https://pypi.org/project/arxiv/,vcs: https://github.com/lukasschwab/arxiv.py

    2026

  39. [39]

    Michael D Skarlinski, Sam Cox, Jon M Laurent, James D Braza, Michaela Hinks, Michael J Hammerling, Manvitha Ponnapati, Samuel G Rodriques, and Andrew D White. 2024. Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13740

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Salimkan Fatma Taşkiran and Ersin Kaya. 2022. ACADEMIC TEXT CLUSTER- ING USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING.Konya Journal of Engineer- ing Sciences, 10, (Dec. 2022), 41–51. doi:10.36306/konjes.1081213

    work page doi:10.36306/konjes.1081213 2022

  41. [41]

    Silvia Terragni, Elisabetta Fersini, Bruno Giovanni Galuzzi, Pietro Tropeano, and Antonio Candelieri. 2021. OCTIS: Comparing and Optimizing Topic models is Simple! en. InProceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 263–...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl- 2021

  42. [42]

    Xuefeng Wang, Shuo Zhang, and Yuqin Liu. 2022. ITGInsight–discovering and visualizing research fronts in the scientific literature. en.Scientometrics, 127, 11, (Nov. 2022), 6509–6531. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04190-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04190-9 2022

  43. [43]

    Joe H Ward Jr. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American statistical association, 58, 301, 236–244

    1963

  44. [44]

    Min-Hsien Weng, Shaoqun Wu, and Mark Dyer. 2022. Identification and Vi- sualization of Key Topics in Scientific Publications with Transformer-Based Language Models and Document Clustering Methods. en.Applied Sciences, 12, 21, (Nov. 2022), 11220. doi:10.3390/app122111220

    work page doi:10.3390/app122111220 2022

  45. [45]

    Changhong Zhang, Zeyu Li, and Jiawan Zhang. 2018. A survey on visualization for scientific literature topics. en.Journal of Visualization, 21, 2, (Apr. 2018), 321–335. doi:10.1007/s12650-017-0462-2. Eliot: Interactively Exploring Fast-Changing Scientific Literature Trends with Online Data and Learning

    work page doi:10.1007/s12650-017-0462-2 2018

  46. [46]

    Zhihua Zhang. 2015. The singular value decomposition, applications and be- yond.CoRR, abs/1510.08532. http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08532 arXiv: 1510.08532

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    [SW] Zubov, Roman, arxivql: arXiv Query Language and Tools 2026.url: https://pypi.org/project/arxivql/,vcs: https://github.com/romazu/arxivql

    2026