arXiv AI By Hita Kambhamettu, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Andrew Head, Jonathan Bragg, Aakanksha Naik, Joseph Chee Chang, Pao Siangliulue

LitPivot: Developing Well-Situated Research Ideas Through Dynamic Contextualization and Critique within the Literature Landscape

Read the original on arXiv AI →

LitPivot is a tool that supports researchers in developing well-situated research ideas by dynamically linking literature exploration with idea refinement. It introduces literature-initiated pivots, where engaging with relevant papers prompts revisions to an idea, and vice versa, updating the set of pertinent literature. In a lab study with 17 participants, users produced higher-rated ideas and reported a stronger understanding of the literature space, while an open-ended study with five participants illustrated how LitPivot facilitates iterative idea evolution.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16

PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress

PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.

By Kevin Qinghong Lin, Siyuan Hu, Pan Lu, Yu Chen, Yanzhe Chen, Owen Queen, Yupeng Chen, Jialin Yu, Junchi Yu, Zifeng Ding, Yuanfeng Ji, Sheng Liu, Jindong Gu, Linjie Li, Mike Zheng Shou, Philip Torr, James Zou
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact

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.

By Shubham Kale, Aniketh Garikaparthi, Manasi Patwardhan