Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

PaperPilot treats multi-turn scientific literature search as building and editing executable DAGs of paper-search operators, and a 9B model trained this way beats its base toolset agent on retrieval while cutting workflow errors to zero.

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-4.5

2026-07-12 09:23 UTC pith:BNE6FY6L

load-bearing objection Solid systems paper: editable paper-search DAGs plus corruption-based training stabilize multi-turn tool use for a 9B model; main caveat is gold-aware simulation, not a broken claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.00597 v2 pith:BNE6FY6L submitted 2026-07-01 cs.CL cs.IR

Multi-Turn Agentic Scientific Literature Search via Workflow Induction

Jisen Li , Bingxuan Li , Nanyi Jiang , Xuying Ning , Xiyao Wang , Yifan Shen , Heng Wang , Yuqing Jian
show 9 more authors
Xiaoxia Wu Ben Athiwaratkun Pan Lu Jiaxuan You Bingxin Zhao Bingxin Zhao (3) ((1) University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (2) Together AI (3) University of Pennsylvania (4) Stanford University)
This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.IR
keywords scientific literature searchmulti-turn agentsworkflow inductionDAG operatorscitation expansionpreference optimizationinteractive retrievaltool-using language models
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.

Scientific literature search is rarely a one-shot keyword match: a user’s intent is often underspecified, preference-dependent, and changes as the conversation proceeds. Most search agents either run a fixed pipeline or keep their strategy only in free-form language, so feedback such as “these papers are too broad” or “focus on more recent work” is hard to turn into concrete retrieval changes. PaperPilot instead induces an executable directed acyclic graph of typed paper-search operators—keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction—and treats later user feedback as instructions to edit that graph. The authors train a 9B model with supervised imitation of high-quality teacher workflows plus preference optimization against deliberately corrupted workflows. On a hold-out multi-turn benchmark with five search directions and a leakage-controlled user simulator, the trained model raises Hit@5, MRR, and nDCG@10 over the untrained 9B toolset agent and drives workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%, supporting the claim that explicit, editable workflows are a controllable interface for aligning search with complex scientific intent.

Core claim

Framing multi-turn scientific literature search as workflow induction—constructing and refining an executable DAG of typed paper-search operators from an anchor paper, query, and interaction history—gives a controllable interface that improves retrieval quality and eliminates workflow execution errors for a 9B model trained with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled corruptions, relative to the same model using the toolset without that training.

What carries the argument

Workflow induction: an executable directed acyclic graph whose nodes are typed paper-search operators (keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, evidence extraction, etc.) and whose edges carry intermediate paper sets, scores, keywords, or evidence; user feedback is applied as structural and parametric edits to this DAG rather than as extra query text.

Load-bearing premise

The controlled multi-turn protocol—hidden gold papers built from citation graphs and related-work cohorts, plus a fixed large-model user simulator under leakage control—is a faithful enough stand-in for real researchers’ evolving intent that the measured multi-turn gains will transfer outside the benchmark.

What would settle it

Run the same multi-turn protocol with real researchers (not a simulator) on the same anchor–query cases and check whether PaperPilot-9B still improves Hit@5, MRR, and nDCG@10 over the untrained 9B toolset agent while keeping workflow execution errors near zero; a clear drop or reversal of those gains would falsify the central claim about controllable alignment with complex scientific intent.

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

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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PaperPilot, a multi-turn scientific literature search agent that frames retrieval as induction and refinement of an executable DAG over a typed operator library (keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, evidence extraction). Given an anchor paper and query, the agent induces a workflow, executes it, and edits structure/parameters from user feedback. PaperPilot-9B is trained with supervised imitation of teacher workflows (filtered by gold-in-top-5 success) plus IPO-style preference optimization on controlled workflow corruptions. On a hold-out benchmark spanning five search directions, multi-turn PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent (Hit@5 58.0→77.0, MRR 47.5→59.4, nDCG@10 26.8→32.5) and reduces workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%, with additional workflow-generation/editing ablations, candidate-pool sensitivity, cost comparisons, and a small human study.

Significance. If the multi-turn gains transfer beyond the controlled protocol, the work offers a practical control interface for agentic literature search: inspectable, editable DAGs rather than opaque free-form tool traces or fixed pipelines. The combination of a typed paper-search toolset, explicit Induce/Refine/Execute loop, and training via imitation plus corruption-based preference pairs is a concrete systems contribution. Strengths include a reproducible hold-out protocol, workflow-level metrics (Table 3; Figs. 6–7), cost-effectiveness reporting, honest limitations, and a human study that at least partially grounds the claim outside pure simulation. The paper is timely for agentic IR and scientific assistants, even if absolute SOTA retrieval is not claimed for the 9B model alone.

major comments (4)
  1. §3.1–3.2 and App. C.2: The central multi-turn claim (Abstract; Fig. 5; Table 2) rests on a fixed Qwen3.5-397B-A17B user simulator conditioned on hidden gold-paper metadata, with leakage controls that block titles/authors but still allow preference-level answers. Because gold sets are built from citation-graph signals, human filtering, LLM-assisted synthesis, and related-work cohorts (App. C.1), simulator feedback may systematically favor operator edits (year filters, citation direction, NLI axes) that PaperPilot is designed to apply. The human study (Table 4; App. C.8) is encouraging but small (six volunteers, five sessions) and insufficient alone to establish transfer. Please either (i) report a larger real-user evaluation with the same metrics, (ii) ablate gold-access vs gold-blind simulation, or (iii) narrow the claim to “under controlled multi-turn protocols with leakage-controlled s
  2. Table 2 / Fig. 4–5: For Qwen3.5-9B Toolset, multi-turn interaction degrades Hit@5 (69.0→58.0) while workflow execution errors rise (2.0%→9.5%); PaperPilot-9B restores Hit@5 to 77.0 with 0% errors. The headline improvement therefore confounds two effects: (a) learning to emit valid executable DAGs under refinement, and (b) learning better search strategies. Without a breakdown of retrieval quality restricted to non-errored base-model runs, or an oracle that repairs only syntax/type errors of the base agent, it is unclear how much of the claimed “workflow induction” benefit is error-rate reduction versus intent-aligned operator composition. Please add this disentangling analysis; it is load-bearing for attributing gains to editable workflows rather than to execution robustness alone.
  3. Table 2: PaperPilot-9B is reported only in the multi-turn “Workflow + Toolset” row; there is no single-turn PaperPilot-9B result and no multi-turn fixed-workflow PaperPilot-9B result. Given that adaptive toolset use already helps untrained models in single-turn (e.g., Qwen3.5-9B Workflow 48.5 vs Toolset 69.0 Hit@5), the contribution of training versus multi-turn refinement versus toolset access cannot be fully separated. Please add the missing single-turn (and, if feasible, multi-turn fixed-workflow) PaperPilot-9B numbers under the same protocol so the training effect is isolated.
  4. §2.3 Training data construction: Supervision retains teacher turns where the gold paper appears in the top-5 under direction-specific success conditions (5,540 examples), then builds preference pairs by corrupting those successful workflows (1,733 hard pairs). This is reasonable for imitation learning, but it couples supervision quality to the same gold construction used at evaluation and may bias the model toward teacher strategies that already exploit citation-graph structure. Please report (i) teacher success rates by direction, (ii) how often rejected corruptions would still retrieve gold under execution, and (iii) whether preference optimization improves retrieval metrics beyond SFT alone (SFT-only checkpoint on the hold-out set).
minor comments (7)
  1. Table 1 capability matrix uses strict ✓/△/× definitions; a short footnote defining each column’s inclusion criteria (already partly in Related Work) would reduce ambiguity for systems marked △.
  2. Fig. 3 action distribution: n decreases sharply after turn 7; clarify whether percentages are conditional on remaining active cases and whether early finalize is treated as success or truncation.
  3. §4.2 / Fig. 8 / Table 6: Sensitivity over K is useful; state whether K is total first-stage candidates or per-source top-k, and whether rerank budget is held fixed when K grows.
  4. App. C.6: Report base model identity for PaperPilot-9B (presumably Qwen3.5-9B), LoRA rank/alpha, and total training tokens or wall-clock for reproducibility.
  5. Notation: Gt, Pt, Ht appear in §2.2 before the full formalization in App. A.2; a brief forward pointer would help.
  6. Typos/consistency: “PAPERPILOT” vs “PaperPilot” casing varies; “Qwen3.5-397B-A17B” vs “Qwen3.5-397B” should be standardized; arXiv id 2607.00597v2 date line is fine but ensure camera-ready author list matches contributions footnote.
  7. Human study App. C.8: Specify interface (Figs. 9–10), blinding, and whether participants saw the same anchors/queries across systems; report variance or per-participant ranges for Table 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation-style circularity: empirical systems results on hold-out retrieval, not predictions forced by fitted inputs or self-definition.

full rationale

PaperPilot is an empirical multi-turn IR/agent systems paper. Its load-bearing claims are measured retrieval metrics (Hit@5, MRR, nDCG, workflow error rate) on a hold-out benchmark under a fixed multi-turn protocol, comparing a trained 9B toolset agent to the untrained base and other baselines (Table 2; Fig. 5). Training is standard SFT on teacher workflows filtered for gold-in-top-5 success plus IPO-style preference pairs from controlled structural/semantic corruptions (§2.3)—that is imitation and preference learning, not a claim that a fitted constant predicts a quantity defined by the same fit. There is no self-definitional equation chain, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors to forbid alternatives, no ansatz smuggled in as a first-principles result, and no renaming of a known closed-form law as a new derivation. Self-citations in Related Work are ordinary positioning, not load-bearing premises that force the headline gains. Concerns about gold construction (citation graph + LLM synthesis) and a gold-conditioned user simulator (App. C.1–C.2) are evaluation-validity / transfer issues, not circular reductions of the form Eq. X ≡ Eq. Y by construction. Per the analyzer rules, that is not circularity; score 0 with empty steps is the correct finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on engineering and evaluation design choices rather than physical constants. Load-bearing premises are that a fixed typed operator library can express scientific search intents, that teacher-generated workflows are good supervision, that corrupted-workflow preference pairs teach useful edits, and that simulator-plus-constructed-gold evaluation measures the intended multi-turn alignment. Free parameters are mostly training and search hyperparameters; invented entities are the PaperPilot toolset/workflow interface itself, which has independent operational evidence via executable runs but limited external validation beyond this paper's benchmark.

free parameters (4)
  • SFT learning rate / epochs / sequence length = 2e-4, 3 epochs, 14336
    Chosen training settings (e.g., 2e-4, 3 epochs, seq 14336) that shape the learned workflow generator; not derived from first principles.
  • IPO/DPO beta and preference-stage LR = β=0.2, LR 3e-5
    Preference optimization strength (β=0.2, LR 3e-5, 3 epochs) selected to stabilize long-context workflow learning.
  • First-stage candidate pool scale K = base ~8–10
    Search scale hyperparameter; sensitivity shows peak around K=8–10 and degradation at larger K, so results depend on this choice.
  • Max clarification turns / top-k cutoffs = 4–5 clarifications; top-50 lists
    Interaction and ranking cutoffs (clarification loop ~4–5 turns; report Hit@5/10/15, top-50 lists) affect measured multi-turn gains.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Scientific multi-turn intent can be adequately expressed as edits over a fixed library of typed paper-search operators composed as a DAG.
    Core modeling choice in §2.2; if important intents need operators outside the library, workflow induction cannot fully align search.
  • domain assumption Five discrete search directions (predecessor, successor, sibling, benchmark, survey) cover the evaluation intents of interest.
    Benchmark design in §3.1 / App. C.1; real queries may mix or fall outside these buckets.
  • ad hoc to paper Teacher trajectories that place gold papers in top-5 under direction-specific success conditions are high-quality workflow supervision.
    Training data construction in §2.3 filters 5,540 examples this way; quality inherits teacher biases.
  • ad hoc to paper An LLM user simulator with gold access but leakage controls provides valid multi-turn feedback for ranking systems.
    App. C.2 protocol is load-bearing for all multi-turn comparisons; Limitations explicitly notes it cannot fully replace humans.
  • domain assumption Standard next-token SFT plus IPO-style preference optimization on corrupted workflows improves executable workflow editing.
    Training recipe in §2.3; common in alignment literature but assumed effective for long DAG strings here.
invented entities (3)
  • PAPERPILOT-TOOLSET (typed paper-search operator library) independent evidence
    purpose: Provide composable sourcing, filter, score, rerank, evidence, and graph operators for executable search DAGs.
    Defined in §2.2 and Table 5; operationally real as code-level tools, but the specific library is paper-introduced rather than a prior standard.
  • Workflow-induction framing for multi-turn literature search (Induce/Refine/Execute loop) no independent evidence
    purpose: Make user feedback act as structural/parameter edits on a DAG rather than only extra query text.
    Central conceptual object of the paper (§2); evidence is empirical performance, not an external physical entity.
  • Controlled workflow-corruption preference pairs no independent evidence
    purpose: Create hard chosen/rejected DAG pairs (invalid refs, dropped nodes, shifted filters, vague NLI axes) for preference optimization.
    §2.3 training construction; useful engineering device without independent existence outside the training pipeline.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23582 in / 3954 out tokens · 44554 ms · 2026-07-12T09:23:41.267907+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Scientific literature search often requires more than retrieving papers from a single query: users' intents are underspecified, preference-dependent, and evolve through interaction. Existing search agents typically rely on fixed pipelines or implicit language-only reasoning, making their search strategies difficult to control, inspect, and refine. We introduce PaperPilot, a multi-turn literature search agent that frames scientific search as workflow induction. Given an anchor paper and a user query, PaperPilot constructs an executable DAG of paper-search operators, including keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction. User feedback is then used to refine both the query and the workflow itself. We train PaperPilot with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled workflow corruptions. Experiments show that PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent under multi-turn interaction, increasing Hit@5 from 58.0 to 77.0, MRR from 47.5 to 59.4, and nDCG@10 from 26.8 to 32.5, while reducing workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%. These results show that explicit, editable search workflows provide an effective and controllable interface for aligning literature search agents with complex scientific intent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00597 by (2) Together AI, (3) University of Pennsylvania, (4) Stanford University), Ben Athiwaratkun, Bingxin Zhao, Bingxin Zhao (3) ((1) University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Bingxuan Li, Heng Wang, Jiaxuan You, Jisen Li, Nanyi Jiang, Pan Lu, Xiaoxia Wu, Xiyao Wang, Xuying Ning, Yifan Shen, Yuqing Jian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of PAPERPILOT. Compared with single-turn scientific literature search, PAPERPILOT uses multi-turn feedback to clarify user intent and refine the search workflow before producing final results. on adaptive retrieval and interaction rather than static query matching. Recent agentic search systems improve retrieval quality by combining language models with ex￾ternal tools, iterative reasoning, and mu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of PAPERPILOT. Given an anchor paper and a user search intent, the agent induces a DAG￾structured search workflow from a predefined toolset, executes the workflow over the literature corpus, and refines the workflow through multi-turn user interaction. parison, or a clarification. The user then provides feedback ft , and the state is updated through T . Interaction-driven refinement. Multi-turn se… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of agent actions across turns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of multi-turn refinement on retrieval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Workflow-generation similarity between Qwen3.5-9B and PAPERPILOT-9B. 0.30 0.45 0.60 Added nodes Modi f i ed node R s emoved nodes Qwen3.5-9B (base) Kimi K2.6 GPT-5.4 PaperPilot-9B (ours) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Workflow-editing consistency across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis over keyword pool scales. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Human Study interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Human Study interface 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Workflow refinement example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An example PaperPilot search session 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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

39 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05622 , year=

    AdaPlanBench: Evaluating Adaptive Planning in Large Language Model Agents under World and User Constraints , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05622 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02734 , year=

    CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02734 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11004 , year=

    NAACL: Noise-AwAre Verbal Confidence Calibration for LLMs in RAG Systems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11004 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  6. [6]

    CoRR , volume =

    Jiayu Liu and Rui Wang and Qing Zong and Qingcheng Zeng and Tianshi Zheng and Haochen Shi and Dadi Guo and Baixuan Xu and Chunyang Li and Yangqiu Song , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2026 , url =. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2601.11004 , eprinttype =. 2601.11004 , timestamp =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11004 2026

  7. [7]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    doi:10.1145/322234.322243 1981

  8. [8]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  9. [9]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  10. [10]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  11. [11]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20997 , year=

    BioInsight: Multi-Agent Orchestration for Interactive Biomedical Knowledge Discovery , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20997 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Control Large Language Models via Divide and Conquer

    Li, Bingxuan and Wang, Yiwei and Meng, Tao and Chang, Kai-Wei and Peng, Nanyun. Control Large Language Models via Divide and Conquer. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.850

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.850 2024

  14. [14]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , month =

    Li, Bingxuan and Cui, Yiming and He, Yicheng and Wang, Yiwei and Zhang, Shu and Wen, Longyin and Niu, Yulei , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , month =. 2026 , pages =

    2026

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07978 , year=

    Osexpert: Computer-use agents learning professional skills via exploration , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07978 , year=

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    METAL : A Multi-Agent Framework for Chart Generation with Test-Time Scaling

    Li, Bingxuan and Wang, Yiwei and Gu, Jiuxiang and Chang, Kai-Wei and Peng, Nanyun. METAL : A Multi-Agent Framework for Chart Generation with Test-Time Scaling. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1452

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1452 2025

  17. [17]

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , booktitle =

  18. [18]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

  19. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

  20. [20]

    and Moazam, Hanna and Miller, Heather and Zaharia, Matei and Potts, Christopher , booktitle =

    Khattab, Omar and Singhvi, Arnav and Maheshwari, Paridhi and Zhang, Zhiyuan and Santhanam, Keshav and Vardhamanan, Sri and Haq, Saiful and Sharma, Ashutosh and Joshi, Thomas T. and Moazam, Hanna and Miller, Heather and Zaharia, Matei and Potts, Christopher , booktitle =

  21. [21]

    Zhang, Jiayi and Xiang, Jinyu and Yu, Zhaoyang and Teng, Fengwei and Chen, Xionghui and Chen, Jiaqi and Zhuge, Mingchen and Cheng, Xin and Hong, Sirui and Wang, Jinlin and Zheng, Bingnan and Liu, Bang and Luo, Yuyu and Wu, Chenglin , booktitle =

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11957 , year=

    PEARL: Self-Evolving Assistant for Time Management with Reinforcement Learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11957 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366 , year =

    Search-o1: Agentic Search-Enhanced Large Reasoning Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    2025 , howpublished =

    2025

  25. [25]

    Li, Yutong and Yuan, Lu and Chen, Yuming and Wang, Pengfei and Zhang, Ningyu , journal =

  26. [26]

    Lu, Chris and Lu, Cong and Lange, Robert Tjarko and Foerster, Jakob and Clune, Jeff and Ha, David , journal =. The

  27. [27]

    Li, Kaichen and Zhao, Tian and Yang, Quanyu and Wu, Yong and Cao, Yu , journal =

  28. [28]

    Whitfield, Sonia and Hofmann, Matthew Axel , journal =. Elicit:

  29. [29]

    Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

    Symbolic representation for any-to-any generative tasks , author=. Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01788 , year=

    Litllm: A toolkit for scientific literature review , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01788 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13740 , year=

    Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13740 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14199 , year=

    Openscholar: Synthesizing scientific literature with retrieval-augmented lms , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14199 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Pasa: An llm agent for comprehensive academic paper search , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  34. [34]

    Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2025

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15784 , year=

    Clarinet: Augmenting language models to ask clarification questions for retrieval , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15784 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Proceedings of the web conference 2020 , pages=

    Generating clarifying questions for information retrieval , author=. Proceedings of the web conference 2020 , pages=

    2020

  37. [37]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Assisting in writing wikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2024

  38. [38]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Autosurvey: Large language models can automatically write surveys , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  39. [39]

    2026 , howpublished =

    2026