arXiv:2606. 24894v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited.
arXiv:2606. 08036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence.
arXiv:2606.22342v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: How does research evolve, and can we trace it at the level of individual claims? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts....
arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
arXiv:2605.29522v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As scientific literature grows rapidly and research increasingly involves AI agents, automated survey generation has become a key capability for bo...
arXiv:2608. 03860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19.
The paper presents a controlled comparison of six retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) strategies for scientific question answering on a large arXiv corpus. All pipelines use the same LLM generator and evaluation protocol, differing only in retrieval design—ranging from classic dense retrieval to late‑interaction methods like ColBERTv2. The authors also release a synthetic question dataset and code to enable reproducible, large‑scale evaluation of RAG trade‑offs.
The paper "Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact" explores using delayed signals of scientific uptake—specifically citation-normalized impact—as feedback to steer large language models toward generating high‑impact research ideas. The authors build a dataset of over 100,000 computer science papers, train a reward model to predict citation impact from goal‑idea pairs, and align an idea generator via supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. Evaluation with a reference‑grounded protocol shows that the RL‑tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than baseline models.
How does research evolve, and what substrate would let us forecast where it goes next? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts: ideas extend prior methods, address known limitations, realize proposed future directions, and sometimes dispute earlier claims.
arXiv:2607. 23006v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific question answering requires a retrieval system to solve two distinct problems: identifying which papers are relevant and locating the supporting evidence within those papers.
arXiv:2609.23735v2 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific agents support a range of literature-based research tasks, such as retrieval, question answering, evidence-grounded generation, and claim as...
RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations) is a large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate how well retrieval systems can support scientific inspiration. It defines relevance through three ideation moves—Address, Broaden, and Specify—each targeting different levels of abstraction in literature retrieval. The benchmark is built from millions of full-text CS papers using a novel discourse-marker distant supervision method, and includes extensive LLM and human vetting to ensure quality.
arXiv:2609.22235v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While multi-agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating the progressive workflow of academic research, extendi...