Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

AgentDisCo splits deep research into a critic agent that evaluates outlines and a generator agent that retrieves and revises them in an adversarial loop.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 22:23 UTC pith:64DUCBLS

load-bearing objection AgentDisCo's critic-generator split plus the GALA benchmark from browsing data are the clearest new pieces, but the writeup stays too high-level to show whether the separation actually helps. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.11732 v2 pith:64DUCBLS submitted 2026-05-12 cs.IR cs.CLcs.MAcs.MM

AgentDisCo: Towards Disentanglement and Collaboration in Open-ended Deep Research Agents

Jiarui Jin , Zexuan Yan , Shijian Wang , Wenxiang Jiao , Yuan Lu This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.CLcs.MAcs.MM
keywords researchagentagentdiscodeepevaluateagentsbenchmarksbrowsing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that deep research improves when exploration and exploitation are handled by separate agents that interact adversarially rather than inside one module. A critic evaluates and refines outlines plus queries while a generator fetches results and updates the outline in response, after which a separate writer produces the report. This setup runs inside a meta-optimization harness that can discover new agent configurations automatically and stores them in a policy bank. The method reaches or exceeds leading closed-source performance on three existing benchmarks and adds the GALA benchmark derived from real user browsing histories. If the separation works as described, research agents could generate higher-quality outlines and reports with less human tuning.

Core claim

AgentDisCo formulates deep research as an adversarial optimization problem between information exploration and exploitation. Unlike existing approaches that conflate these two processes into a single module, AgentDisCo employs a critic agent to evaluate generated outlines and refine search queries, and a generator agent to retrieve updated results and revise outlines accordingly. The iteratively refined outline is then passed to a downstream report writer that synthesizes a comprehensive research report. The overall workflow supports both handcrafted and automatically discovered design strategies via a meta-optimization harness, in which the generator agent is repurposed as a scoring agent t

What carries the argument

The critic-generator adversarial interaction, in which the critic evaluates outlines and refines queries while the generator retrieves data and revises outlines in repeated cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The critic and generator agents can be disentangled so their adversarial interaction produces better outlines than a single combined module without introducing coordination failures or information loss that lowers final report quality.

What would settle it

Human evaluators rating final research reports produced by a single integrated agent higher than those from the two-agent AgentDisCo loop on matched tasks from DeepResearchBench or GALA.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Reaches or exceeds leading closed-source systems on DeepResearchBench, DeepConsult, and DeepResearchGym using Gemini-2.5-Pro.
  • Introduces the GALA benchmark that derives research topics from users' historical browsing behavior.
  • Enables automatic discovery of agent design strategies through code-generation agents and a reusable policy bank.
  • Supports an end-to-end product that converts browsing history into personalized research reports and poster presentations.
  • Allows the generator to be repurposed as a scoring agent inside the meta-optimization harness for self-refinement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same critic-generator split could be tested on other agent tasks that require balancing new search against refinement, such as literature synthesis or hypothesis generation.
  • If GALA better matches real user needs than prior benchmarks, it could shift evaluation standards toward history-derived personalization.
  • Coordination overhead between the two agents might increase latency or error rates when research topics grow more open-ended or multi-step.
  • The poster-rendering agent points to possible extensions where the same architecture produces not only text reports but also visual or interactive outputs.
  • keywords:[
  • deep research agents
  • disentangled architecture
  • adversarial optimization

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents AgentDisCo, a disentangled critic-generator agent architecture for open-ended deep research. It formulates research as an adversarial optimization between exploration and exploitation, with a critic agent evaluating outlines and refining queries while a generator agent retrieves results and revises outlines; the refined outline feeds a downstream report writer. A meta-optimization harness repurposes the generator as a scorer to build a policy bank of design strategies via code-generation agents (e.g., Claude-Code). The system is evaluated on DeepResearchBench, DeepConsult, and DeepResearchGym using Gemini-2.5-Pro, claiming performance comparable to or surpassing leading closed-source systems. It introduces the GALA benchmark mined from user browsing histories, a rendering agent for poster presentations, and demonstrates the end-to-end AutoResearch Your Interest product.

Significance. If the empirical results and disentanglement benefits hold, the work offers a concrete architecture for improving collaborative agent performance on complex, open-ended tasks through role separation and automated strategy discovery. The GALA benchmark addresses a genuine gap by grounding evaluation in real user interests rather than synthetic queries. The policy-bank approach via code agents is a practical contribution toward reducing manual design effort in agentic systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §3 (method description): the central performance claim (comparable or superior results on three benchmarks) is stated without any quantitative metrics, tables, ablation results, or baseline comparisons, rendering the claim unverifiable and load-bearing for the contribution.
  2. [Method] §3 (adversarial loop): the description of critic-generator interaction provides no concrete specification of information flow, query refinement protocol, outline revision mechanism, or optimization objective, leaving the core disentanglement assumption untestable and at risk of coordination failure or information loss.
minor comments (2)
  1. A workflow diagram illustrating the critic-generator loop, meta-optimization harness, and policy bank would substantially improve clarity.
  2. Ensure consistent first-use definitions for all acronyms (GALA, GALA benchmark) and agent roles.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of the work's potential significance. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen verifiability and clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and §3 (method description): the central performance claim (comparable or superior results on three benchmarks) is stated without any quantitative metrics, tables, ablation results, or baseline comparisons, rendering the claim unverifiable and load-bearing for the contribution.

    Authors: We agree the abstract presents the performance claim at a high level. The full manuscript includes quantitative results, tables, and baseline comparisons in the experiments section. We will revise the abstract to incorporate key metrics (e.g., specific scores or relative improvements on DeepResearchBench, DeepConsult, and DeepResearchGym) and add explicit pointers to the relevant tables and ablation studies, improving immediate verifiability without exceeding length limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] §3 (adversarial loop): the description of critic-generator interaction provides no concrete specification of information flow, query refinement protocol, outline revision mechanism, or optimization objective, leaving the core disentanglement assumption untestable and at risk of coordination failure or information loss.

    Authors: We acknowledge that §3 currently emphasizes the high-level adversarial formulation. To render the disentanglement testable and mitigate risks of coordination failure, we will expand the section with a detailed protocol: explicit information flow (e.g., outline and query exchange formats), query refinement steps, outline revision rules, and the precise optimization objective. We will also include pseudocode for the loop and an illustrative diagram. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical architecture without derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes an agent architecture (critic-generator loop, meta-optimization harness, policy bank) and reports empirical results on benchmarks including a newly introduced GALA benchmark. No equations, first-principles derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on system design and benchmark performance rather than any mathematical reduction that could be circular by construction. This is the expected outcome for a systems/empirical paper with no derivation chain to inspect.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effectiveness of newly introduced agent roles and the meta-optimization process, which are postulated in the abstract without independent evidence or external benchmarks beyond the described workflow.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Multi-agent systems can be disentangled into independent critic and generator roles that improve research outline quality through adversarial iteration.
    Invoked as the core of the AgentDisCo architecture.
invented entities (4)
  • Critic agent no independent evidence
    purpose: Evaluate generated outlines and refine search queries
    New role introduced to handle evaluation separately from retrieval.
  • Generator agent no independent evidence
    purpose: Retrieve updated results and revise outlines
    Paired role for information gathering and outline updates.
  • Policy bank no independent evidence
    purpose: Structured repository of reusable design strategies discovered via meta-optimization
    Output of the code-generation agent harness.
  • GALA benchmark no independent evidence
    purpose: Mine latent research interests from users' historical browsing behavior
    New evaluation dataset introduced to address limitations of prior benchmarks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5823 in / 1559 out tokens · 36297 ms · 2026-06-30T22:23:27.070253+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present AgentDisCo, a novel Disentangled and Collaborative agentic architecture that formulates deep research as an adversarial optimization problem between information exploration and exploitation. Unlike existing approaches that conflate these two processes into a single module, AgentDisCo employs a critic agent to evaluate generated outlines and refine search queries, and a generator agent to retrieve updated results and revise outlines accordingly. The iteratively refined outline is then passed to a downstream report writer that synthesizes a comprehensive research report. The overall workflow supports both handcrafted and automatically discovered design strategies via a meta-optimization harness, in which the generator agent is repurposed as a scoring agent to evaluate critic outputs and generate quality signals. Powerful code-generation agents (e.g., Claude-Code, Codex) systematically explore agent configurations and construct a policy bank, a structured repository of reusable design strategies, enabling the framework to self-refine without extensive human intervention. We evaluate AgentDisCo on three established deep research benchmarks (DeepResearchBench, DeepConsult, DeepResearchGym) using Gemini-2.5-Pro, achieving performance comparable to or surpassing leading closed-source systems. Observing that existing benchmarks inadequately reflect real-world user needs, we introduce GALA (General AI Life Assistants), a benchmark that mines latent research interests from users' historical browsing behavior. We further develop a rendering agent that converts research reports into visually rich poster presentations, and demonstrate an end-to-end product, AutoResearch Your Interest, which delivers personalized deep research recommendations derived from individual browsing histories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11732 by Jiarui Jin, Shijian Wang, Wenxiang Jiao, Yuan Lu, Zexuan Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of deep research paradigms. (a) the outline-iterative-optimization paradigm couples outline generation and search query formulation within a single model; (b) the report-iterative￾optimization paradigm similarly entangles report generation with search query formulation; (c) in contrast, AgentDisCo disentangles the outline generator and the search query generator into separate models, and further… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the architecture and applications of AgentDisCo. AgentDisCo spans the full pipeline from mining latent deep research queries in user interaction histories to producing structured reports and rendering visually rich posters. This end-to-end design realizes the vision of “AutoResearch Your Interest”—automatically tracking evolving user interests and delivering personalized deep research recommend… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the harness optimization in AgentDisCo. AgentDisCo can automatically discover design strategies by constructing a meta-optimization harness around the adversarial optimization loop. Specifically, the generator agent—originally tasked with producing target outlines—is repurposed as a scoring agent that evaluates the critic agent’s outputs and generates quality signals, thereby enabling systemati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the render agent in AgentDisCo. Our render agent accepts as input a report in either PDF or Markdown format. It first extracts the salient features and structural elements from the report, and then reorganizes the content into one of two presentation modalities: an HTML-based layout or a slide-style layout. Notably, both modalities support pluggable templates and styling components, enabling fl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A showcase of AgentDisCo. The figure illustrates the end-to-end processing pipeline of an input query: starting from the planner agent, proceeding through the iterative optimization loop between the (outline) critic agent and the (outline) generator agent, and finally passing to the writer agent and the render agent. 2.5 Render Agent Considering that a clear, intuitive, and visually engaging interface is e… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between our proposed GALA benchmark with existing benchmarks DeepRe￾searchBench, DeepResearchGym, DeepConsult. . 2.6 A Running Example To illustrate the end-to-end workflow of AgentDisCo, we present a real execution trace in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: End-to-end scores with varying rounds of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Consistency of harness optimization over critic agent to end-to-end optimization with varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gallery of diverse template styles and types, including slides, posters, and portrait-format images. Our render agent offers extensive stylistic choices, accommodating diverse user preferences. { "evaluation": { "completeness": { "score": 0, "reasoning": "explanation of scoring rationale" }, "diversity": { "score": 0, "reasoning": "explanation of scoring rationale" }, "search_coverage": { "score": 0, "rea… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Simple QA to Deep Research: A Verifiable Benchmark Constructed through Iterative Task Evolution

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    An automatic pipeline evolves simple QA questions into 500 deep-research tasks with DAG-structured, fact-grounded rubrics that discriminate between models.

  2. Fetch-then-Explore: Decoupling Selection from Extraction over a Persistent Workspace for Search Agents

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    Fetch-then-Explore, which stores fetched pages in a per-question workspace and extracts evidence on demand with grep/read, beats visit-and-read and browsing baselines on BrowseComp across three LLM backbones.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 155 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LangChain, Inc

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16075. LangChain, Inc. LangChain: Building applications with LLMs through composability, 2023. URL https://python.langchain.com/. Yoonho Lee, Roshen Nair, Qizheng Zhang, Kangwook Lee, Omar Khattab, and Chelsea Finn. Meta- harness: End-to-end optimization of model harnesses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28052, 2026. Yu Lei, Shuzhe...

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    • I’m planning to

    Background Context (1–2 sentences) Describe a real user scenario, clearly stating the user’s goal or confusion, such as: 19 • I’m planning to purchase . . . • I’m planning to . . . • I’m considering whether to . . . • I’m torn between the following options

    work page

  3. [3]

    Research Subjects Clearly list the specific subjects to be researched, using numbered format: (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . Research subjects can be: products / brands / solutions / locations / platforms / strategies

    work page

  4. [4]

    Research Questions (3–5) Use numbered format to list questions that require research to answer, such as:

    work page

  5. [5]

    What are real user reviews and reputation like

    work page

  6. [6]

    Does actual experience match the advertised claims

    work page

  7. [7]

    How is the price and value for money

    work page

  8. [8]

    What are common issues or usage risks

    work page

  9. [9]

    How high is the long-term usage cost or maintenance difficulty Research questions must be: specific, searchable, comparable, and analyzable

    work page

  10. [10]

    Constraints (2–4) Clearly state the user’s limiting conditions, such as: • Budget constraint: total budget not exceeding XXX • Usage scenario: mainly for commuting / suitable for southern climate / no drilling allowed in rental • Personal preference: prioritizes durability / dislikes complex maintenance • Time condition: needs to make a decision soon

    work page

  11. [11]

    Which is more suitable for me, XX or XX? Compare from XX dimen- sions

    Research Goal Clearly state the action conclusion the user hopes to obtain, such as: • Provide a ranked recommendation • Determine whether it is worth purchasing • Choose the optimal solution • Formulate a specific action plan ## Step 3 — Query Depth Requirements Each query must satisfy: • Requires at least 3 different information sources to answer • Requ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Output only the category name — do not add any explanation, punctuation, or extra text

    work page

  13. [13]

    Must select from the categories listed above — do not create new categories

    work page

  14. [14]

    The detailed prompt is listed as follows

    Choose the category that most closely matches the core intent of the query A.3 Prompt for Planner Agent As described in Section 2, the primary objective of our planner agent is to interpret user intent and generate corresponding guidance cues and response style specifications to direct the subsequent agents accordingly. The detailed prompt is listed as fo...

    work page

  15. [15]

    X vs Y”, “difference between X and Y

    Comparison & Selection • Core signals: “X vs Y”, “difference between X and Y”, “X or Y”, “difference between”, “com- pared to” — two or more entities explicitly placed side by side • Response content: The opening section must include a one-sentence conclusion; then dynami- cally select the most relevant dimensions based on the topic (e.g., performance / p...

    work page

  16. [16]

    recommend

    Recommendations & Suggestions • Core signals: “recommend”, “best”, “what’s a good”, “best X”, “top X for Y” — seeking advice with no specific candidates in mind • Response content: The opening section must provide a recommendation overview (e.g., top pick, runner-up, best value); then offer a comparison of the recommended options, which may include core h...

    work page

  17. [17]

    how to do

    How-to Guide • Core signals: “how to do”, “how to”, “tutorial”, “getting started”, “step by step” — action- oriented, expecting operational steps • Response content: The opening section must cover prerequisites (environment/requirements), core steps, and estimated time; subsequent sections must detail each step’s description and common issues

    work page

  18. [18]

    travel to X

    Travel Planning • Core signals: “travel to X”, “X travel guide”, “X days”, “travel guide”, “itinerary” — location + travel-related terms • Response content: The opening section must provide 2–3 sentences of overview; then provide a Day 1–Day X itinerary including must-visit attractions, dining recommendations, transporta- tion guide, accommodation suggest...

    work page

  19. [19]

    how much does X cost

    Purchase Decision • Core signals: “how much does X cost”, “is X worth buying”, “which model is better”, “worth it”, “should I buy” — price / purchase intent • Response content: The opening section must provide 2–3 sentences covering: whether it is recommended + who it suits + the single most important reason; then present a product overview table with rea...

    work page

  20. [20]

    what is”, “what does X mean

    Fact Query • Core signals: “what is”, “what does X mean”, “Define” — expecting a definitive answer • Response content: The opening section must answer with a concise, accurate core definition; include 2–5 of the most important key points based on the topic

    work page

  21. [21]

    latest developments

    Status & Progress • Core signals: “latest developments”, “what’s happening with X now”, “X update”, “X latest” — contains time-indicative words • Response content: Pay attention to information recency; the opening section must present a recent update timeline with concise timestamps, events, and brief descriptions

    work page

  22. [22]

    X news”, “X this week

    News & Information • Core signals: “X news”, “X this week” — explicitly news / current-events oriented • Response content: The opening section must list the most important news headlines with 2–3 objective summary sentences; subsequent content follows reverse chronological order with clear, verifiable timestamps

    work page

  23. [23]

    deep dive into

    Deep Exploration • Core signals: “deep dive into”, “X ecosystem”, “ecosystem”, “everything about” — open- ended, no clearly defined scope • Response content: The opening section must provide 2–3 sentences of general framing: what the topic is, why it is worth exploring, and its current significance

    work page

  24. [24]

    X official website

    Resource Locating 23 • Core signals: “X official website”, “X documentation”, “X GitHub”, “official site”, “documen- tation” — looking for specific links or resources • Response content: The opening section must list the core links; subsequent sections may provide additional extended resources # Output Format Output JSON directly with no extra content, us...

    work page

  25. [25]

    Zero-score situations:Empty outlines, malicious content (empty answers, meaningless text, score manipulation, etc.) receive 0 directly

    work page

  26. [26]

    Strict standards:Each dimension is scored independently (0–10), and the total score is the average of all dimensions

    work page

  27. [27]

    High-score threshold:A score of 8 or above is only awarded to outlines that perform exceptionally in that dimension; 7 is good, 6 is acceptable, and below 5 is unacceptable Evaluation Dimensions (0–10 points each) 1.Instruction Adherence (0–10) • 9–10: Perfectly follows all user requirements (topic, audience, purpose, format, length, etc.), with clear hie...

    work page

  28. [28]

    Non-empty list:Supplement and optimize based on the current user query, with a focus on reinforcing missing dimensions

    work page

  29. [29]

    Empty list:Generate a comprehensive list of key point content based on the user query, producing a key points list that covers the core elements

    work page

  30. [30]

    Ensure content breadth (covering multiple relevant dimensions) and depth (specific analysis points for each dimension)

    Update principles:Prioritize addition and rewriting logic; avoid simply deleting existing reasonable content. Ensure content breadth (covering multiple relevant dimensions) and depth (specific analysis points for each dimension). Address weaknesses identified in the evaluation dimensions in a targeted manner

    work page

  31. [31]

    List length:Flexibly determined based on the complexity and coverage scope of the user query; simple questions may be appropriately condensed, complex questions should be fully expanded; generally recommended to stay within{max blueprints len} { Search Term Generation Guidelines (Xiaohongshu / Knowledge):

    work page

  32. [32]

    Extract all core topic words, proper nouns, and important attributes from the user’s question

    work page

  33. [33]

    Each search term must be specific, clear, and closely aligned with the user’s needs, suitable for use on the Xiaohongshu platform; it is strictly prohibited to introduce irrelevant, vague, or redundant information

    work page

  34. [34]

    If the user’s question involves details such as time, location, person, or scenario, extract and incorporate them reasonably into the keywords; if not explicitly mentioned, there is no need to force their inclusion

    work page

  35. [35]

    Ensure diversity of keyword expression, covering different synonymous expressions or important subcategories under the same topic

    work page

  36. [36]

    Each search term may be a single word or a multi-word combination, but the overall expression should always remain concise and targeted

    Keywords within each search term group should be separated by spaces (example: skincare hydrating mask); different search term groups should be separated by English commas. Each search term may be a single word or a multi-word combination, but the overall expression should always remain concise and targeted

    work page

  37. [37]

    Assess whether the user’s original input already contains expressions suitable for use as search terms; if so, retain and include them directly in the result list

    work page

  38. [38]

    Do not output any explanations, descriptions, or formatting symbols; output only the final list of search term groups

    work page

  39. [39]

    Generated search terms should be in Chinese

    work page

  40. [43]

    { { Search Term Generation Guidelines (Google):

    Note: Prioritize the user’s requirements when deciding the number of search terms to generate for each outline target list item; in general, it is recommended to keep the number of search terms within{max query len}. { { Search Term Generation Guidelines (Google):

    work page

  41. [44]

    Precisely extract core topic words, proper nouns, and important information from the user’s input

    work page

  42. [45]

    Q3 2024” should be written as “Third Quarter of 2024

    Time information must be identified and completed: extract explicit time references directly (e.g., “Q3 2024” should be written as “Third Quarter of 2024”); implicit time references must be converted into specific intervals (e.g., “last quarter” requires automatic calculation of the previous quarter’s start and end dates based on today’s date:{{curr date}}) 26

    work page 2024

  43. [46]

    Keyword priority order: proper nouns (brands, companies, products, policies, etc.) > metrics or characteristics (figures, sales volumes, new products, technological breakthroughs, etc.) > key actions (releases, rises/falls, mergers, experiences, etc.) > regions or scenarios (cities, countries, specific locations)

    work page

  44. [47]

    how”, “whether

    Expressions must be concise: remove interrogative words (“how”, “whether”, etc.), subjective descriptors (“amazing”, “ultra-powerful”, etc.), and vague expressions (“some”, “various”, etc.); retain only content with actual retrieval significance

    work page

  45. [48]

    vs” or “comparison

    For special scenarios, such as comparative questions, retain both sides of the comparison and highlight them with “vs” or “comparison”

    work page

  46. [49]

    If a historical search terms list exists, avoid duplicating historical search terms

    Note: Search terms must ensure broad and diverse coverage; they do not need to be strongly related to the user’s question, as long as they provide incremental value. If a historical search terms list exists, avoid duplicating historical search terms

    work page

  47. [50]

    Note: Search term generation should aim for depth and should not be empty where possible

    work page

  48. [51]

    Note: When the input outline content is non-empty, search term generation should explore the content depth lacking in each sub-heading of the outline as much as possible, striving to enrich the depth of outline content

    work page

  49. [52]

    rating":`float`- Score for the given outline,

    Note: Prioritize the user’s requirements when deciding the number of search terms to generate for each outline target list item; in general, it is recommended to keep the number of search terms within{max query len}. { ## Output Format Please strictly output in the following JSON format: { "rating":`float`- Score for the given outline, "justification":`st...

    work page

  50. [53]

    how to completely answer the user’s query,

    Query-first response:The overall organizational logic of the outline must center on directly responding to the user’s query. All chapter divisions and sub-topic settings must revolve around “how to completely answer the user’s query,” avoiding generalized expansions that deviate from the user’s core needs

    work page

  51. [54]

    Prioritize responding to the user’s primary intent and cover the user’s secondary intent in specific sections

    Response style:Follow the style to cover and arrange the key points of the outline content. Prioritize responding to the user’s primary intent and cover the user’s secondary intent in specific sections

    work page

  52. [55]

    Ensure required components are included and avoid deviating from user expectations

    Instruction adherence:Generate the outline strictly according to the requirements of the user’s query, including subject scope, audience positioning, level of detail, tone and style, as well as any formatting or structural requirements. Ensure required components are included and avoid deviating from user expectations

    work page

  53. [56]

    Content depth:Based on the outline key points list, ensure the outline possesses analytical depth. An excellent outline not only contains generalizing headings but should also include: specific analysis points, key argumentation logic, mechanisms and causal relationships, methodological frameworks, evaluation metrics, dependency analysis, and evidence and...

    work page

  54. [57]

    Perspective balance:Ensure fairness and objectivity of the outline. For complex or controversial issues, multiple perspectives and differing viewpoints should be planned, content space should be allocated fairly, and neutral, non-leading language should be used. Explicitly include sections for trade-off analysis, discussion of limitations, and considerati...

    work page

  55. [58]

    Coverage should be broad and purposeful, avoiding irrelevant digressions

    Coverage breadth:Based on the outline key points list, ensure coverage of multiple relevant dimensions, such as: historical background, policies and regulations, market economics, tech- nical operations, social culture, geographic comparisons, stakeholder analysis, risk assessment, and implementation pathways. Coverage should be broad and purposeful, avoi...

    work page

  56. [59]

    Precisely add citation markers <cite>document ID</cite> after relevant content, ensuring citation diversity to enhance the credibility and comprehensiveness of the argumentation

    Evidence support:Systematically plan the evidence framework and sources. Precisely add citation markers <cite>document ID</cite> after relevant content, ensuring citation diversity to enhance the credibility and comprehensiveness of the argumentation. Fabricating citation information is strictly prohibited

    work page

  57. [60]

    Insight value:Go beyond common templates by providing original structural frameworks, high- lighting non-obvious connections, and rationally sequencing sections to efficiently reveal key insights. Ensure recommendations and analyses are specific and actionable, explicitly identifying specific cases, comparative studies, and appropriate presentation method...

    work page

  58. [61]

    When a section at a given level requires subdivision, it should contain 2 or more sub-headings to ensure reasonable and complete categorization

    Structural logic:Build clear hierarchical relationships with distinct responsibilities for headings at each level and smooth logical flow. When a section at a given level requires subdivision, it should contain 2 or more sub-headings to ensure reasonable and complete categorization. Focus on overall structural coherence, logical relationships between sect...

    work page

  59. [62]

    ### Special Requirements

    Citation diversity:Cite as many different document IDs as possible to enhance evidence support through diversified sources and provide multi-perspective viewpoints. ### Special Requirements

    work page

  60. [63]

    Executive Summary,

    Open with a direct substantive answer (preamble and background explanations are absolutely prohibited): • Thefirst chapter of the report(i.e., the ## heading) must cut straight to the point and provide thefinal substantive answerto the user’s query. • It isstrictly prohibitedto write vacuous preamble content such as “Executive Summary,” “Background Introd...

    work page

  61. [64]

    how does this section serve the answering of the user’s query

    Content self-consistency:Ensure the outline covers the complete scope of the topic, with each section corresponding to and echoing the others to form a complete closed loop. Content should have no repetition, no omissions, no conflicts, and must be practical and readable. All sections must be able to clearly answer the question “how does this section serv...

    work page

  62. [65]

    Deep exploration:On the premise of ensuring logic and consistency, generate more levels of sub-headings to ensure each section is explored in depth, avoiding superficial generalizations

    work page

  63. [66]

    Iterative optimization:If the previous round outline content is non-empty, conduct systematic iteration based on the previous round outline, fully incorporating the improvement suggestions from the evaluation

    work page

  64. [67]

    On the premise of ensuring logical relationships between sections, divide into as many core sections as possible to cover the content of the outline key points list

    Section richness:To improve overall information coverage, multiple core sections ( ##) should be used in the outline. On the premise of ensuring logical relationships between sections, divide into as many core sections as possible to cover the content of the outline key points list. In general, the number of core sections should be no fewer than 7–10 (inc...

    work page

  65. [68]

    Any content relevant to the user’s query and outline key points list should be cited wherever possible

    High citation coverage:To improve overall information coverage, externally sourced search results should be utilized as fully as possible. Any content relevant to the user’s query and outline key points list should be cited wherever possible. In general, the number of externally sourced search content citations should be no fewer than 100–200. ## Citation...

    work page

  66. [69]

    Format standard:Use the <cite>document ID</cite> format, e.g., <cite>turn_0_4, turn_1_8</cite>

    work page

  67. [70]

    Positional accuracy:Immediately follow the relevant information, ensuring citations correspond precisely to content

    work page

  68. [71]

    ## Output Format

    Prohibition principle:Fabricating cited document information or fictitious document IDs is strictly prohibited. ## Output Format

    work page

  69. [72]

    Please output only the final answer outline; do not repeat the user’s question and do not output any opening remarks or explanatory statements

    work page

  70. [73]

    Strictly follow the above rules and structure, ensuring clarity of organization, richness of content, and elegance of expression

    work page

  71. [74]

    ## Chapter 2 [Specific Discussion / Dimensional Breakdown...]

    Strictly output using the following Markdown hierarchical structure: # [Overall Report Title] ## Chapter 1 [Core Conclusion That Directly Answers the Query] ### 1.1 [Declarative sentence heading for Conclusion Dimension 1] ### 1.2 [Declarative sentence heading for Conclusion Dimension 2] ... ## Chapter 2 [Specific Discussion / Dimensional Breakdown...] .....

    work page

  72. [75]

    Why. . . ?

    Strictly follow the outline framework:Use the heading structure of the input outline as the sole skeleton, filling in corresponding content under each heading. It is strictly prohibited to independently add, delete, merge, or split any heading level. The organizational logic of section content must fully correspond to the outline’s hierarchical structure;...

    work page

  73. [76]

    Write around the user’s query:While filling in the outline framework, every paragraph of content must clearly serve the answering of the user’s query. Before writing, first clarify the role this section plays in answering the user’s query (background setting, core argumentation, data support, conclusions and recommendations, etc.), and use this as the gui...

    work page

  74. [77]

    Content supplementation:Remain faithful to the outline framework; supplement the details of the outline by combining search document content, focusing exclusively on the sections designated in the outline; it is strictly prohibited to supplement the content of preceding or following sections

    work page

  75. [78]

    Logical optimization:Ensure the report structure is clear, well-layered, thoroughly argued, and professionally expressed

    work page

  76. [79]

    Let’s think step by step

    Citation standards:Strictly maintain the <cite>document ID</cite> format; it is prohibited to fabricate document content or fictitious document IDs. 6.Quality assurance:Apply the “Let’s think step by step” approach; content must be well-reasoned and evidence-based, avoiding vague statements and ensuring information accuracy

    work page

  77. [80]

    Formatting aesthetics:Based on the question type of the user’s query, adopt an appropriate and readable format (such as paragraphs, numbered lists, tables, etc.) to enhance readability

    work page

  78. [81]

    Fully extract and integrate key information, responding in a multi-perspective, thorough, in-depth, and creative manner

    Information integration:Synthesize the content of multiple relevant search results; the same externally sourced search document content must not be cited repeatedly. Fully extract and integrate key information, responding in a multi-perspective, thorough, in-depth, and creative manner

    work page

  79. [82]

    Language consistency:Unless the user specifically requests otherwise, respond in the same lan- guage as the user’s query

    work page

  80. [83]

    Consistency and self-coherence:Ensure that every key point is answered in a self-consistent, substantive, and professional manner; for example, a weekly meal plan must list a complete seven-day menu

    work page

Showing first 80 references.