arXiv:2609.22111v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language model agents are increasingly capable of conducting research autonomously, producing research documents alongside the code and experimen...
By Qiuhong Shen, Benlong Wu, Hanjin Liu, Yuang Qi, Kejiang Chen
DeepWeaver is a framework designed to improve open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive, well‑cited answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and supporting evidence, and uses subordinate TBCs to refine and expand the evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show that DeepWeaver enhances content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
By Xujia Wang, Yizhe Zhang, Bin Xu, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li
DeepWeaver addresses the evidence synthesis gap in open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and citations, allowing the system to revise and expand evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show improved content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
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...
By ScholarSeed AI Team, Caoqinwei Gong, Xue Jiang, Wei Luo, Xiaoyu Qiu, Jiayi Sheng, Yi Wang, Zheng Yu, Ao Zhang, Haifan Zhang, Hanwei Zhang, Jihai Zhang, Yuan Cao, Wei Chen, Liyun Dai, Wenkai Fang, Guanglei Wang, Kai Ying, Tingyu Zhu, Wotao Yin
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
By Valentin Romanov, Monique Bax, Steven Niederer
SciLitBench is a multi-stage benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in systematic literature reviews, covering title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction across 42,981 records and 888 included papers. The study shows that explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria boost title and abstract screening performance by 28.8% and researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15%. Data extraction performance varies widely, with high accuracy for publication year but low overlap for computational approaches, and even the best models recover only a fraction of annotated evidence and limitations.
By Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin