Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

SymbioticRAG: Enhancing Document Intelligence Through Human-LLM Symbiotic Collaboration

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SymbioticRAG: feeding user-interaction summaries into retrieval cuts the human-retriever distance roughly in half.

desk verdict This is a substantial system paper whose headline evaluation is contaminated: the retriever under test is built from the same user selections that define the gold standard, making Table 1 uninterpretable as a measure of retrieval quality. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02418 v1 pith:M4WFZAEG submitted 2025-05-05 cs.IR cs.HC

Qiang Sun , Tingting Bi , Sirui Li , Eun-Jung Holden , Paul Duuring , Kai Niu , Wei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.HC
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationhuman-computersymbiosisrelevancejudgmentinteractionlogsdocumentintelligencelayout-awareretrievalusersatisfactionpersonalized
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that retrieval-augmented generation should be a two-way loop: humans explore source documents and curate relevant passages, while the retriever learns from those interactions. It reports that appending an LLM-generated summary of a user's interaction history to the query before embedding reduces the human-retriever distance from the 0.85–0.92 range of a naive semantic retriever to 0.52–0.61 in three scenarios: literature review, geological exploration, and education. User satisfaction rises correspondingly, from 1.80–2.47 to 3.67–4.13 on a five-point scale. The claim matters because relevance is ultimately determined by people, and conventional RAG treats query formulation as a one-shot act, which fails when users do not yet know what they need.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the interaction-log intention summary: every click, selection, deselection, page navigation, and like or dislike is logged, an LLM condenses those logs into a natural-language statement of what the user appears to be after, and that statement is concatenated with the original query before the embedding step that drives semantic search. The measured quantity carrying the comparison is the human-retriever distance $D$, a set-similarity score between the layout blocks the user selected and the blocks the retriever returned. The document-processing pipeline supplies fine-grained, position-preserving layout blocks (tables, formulas, figures, text) so that human selection and retrieval operate on the same atomic units. The interface's staging area turns human curation into logged training signal, which is what makes the loop bidirectional in principle.

What would settle it

Run the same three scenarios in a counterbalanced design where half the evaluators mark relevant blocks before seeing any retrieval results and half mark them after; if the human-retriever distance advantage of SymbioticRAG shrinks or vanishes in the before condition, the improvement is driven by users anchoring on displayed blocks rather than by the intention summary better capturing true relevance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the retriever can be brought markedly closer to human judgment by augmenting the query with an LLM summary of the user's own interaction logs (which blocks were clicked, selected, deselected, and explored) before semantic search. The paper implements this as its Level 2 experiment and measures the gap between human-selected layout blocks $H$ and retriever-returned blocks $R$ by $D = 1 - |H \cap R| / |H \cup R|$. Across three scenarios, $D$ falls to 0.52–0.61 for the interaction-augmented retriever, versus 0.78–0.83 for label-diversified retrieval and 0.85–0.92 for naive semantic retrieval, with mean satisfaction rising to 3.67–4.13. The authors read this as evidence that user interaction summaries capture semantic intent better than the raw query alone, and as groundwork for a retrieval model that continuously adapts to an individual user.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the layout blocks each evaluator selected are an unbiased gold standard for what is truly relevant, uninfluenced by the blocks the retriever happened to display or suggest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported distances reflect true alignment, interaction-augmented retrieval could replace raw semantic search as the default for multi-turn, exploratory question answering over documents.
  • The same logs that improve retrieval can be accumulated as training data for a personalized retriever, moving from prompt-level summarization to model-level adaptation.
  • Document processing that preserves layout-block identity lets users verify and curate at the level of tables, figures, and formulas rather than whole pages, which is a precondition for the measured alignment.
  • The system's report-generation workflow shows a concrete downstream payoff: curated blocks become citable evidence in generated drafts, reducing the need to re-check sources after generation.
  • The pattern holds across literature review, geology, and education, suggesting the mechanism transfers across expertise levels and document types rather than being tuned to one domain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper does not run is an ablation varying how much interaction history is summarized; the claim predicts that $D$ should improve with interaction length up to a saturation point and degrade if the summary is randomized.
  • The $D$ metric likely conflates retrieval quality with interface influence, because users select from blocks the retriever already displayed, so part of the alignment for SymbioticRAG could be anchoring; a clean test would let users mark relevant blocks before any retrieval is shown and compare $D$ against the paper's protocol.
  • The intention-summary idea could be tested without the custom interface by replaying logged interactions from a standard RAG chat and appending summaries to queries, separating the effect of the summary from the effect of the interface.
  • If Level 2 is taken to its end point, the interaction logs could fine-tune the embedding model itself rather than being summarized into the prompt; the paper's results suggest the signal is rich enough that this is worth trying.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents SymbioticRAG, a retrieval-augmented generation framework with a two-level design: Level 1 gives users an interactive interface to inspect source documents and manually select relevant layout blocks, and Level 2 is an experimental step that augments the query with an LLM-generated summary of the user's interaction logs to personalize retrieval. The system includes a document processing pipeline (layout detection, OCR, table/formula/figure extraction), an extensible retriever module, and a human-on-the-loop validation interface. The evaluation compares three retrieval strategies—NaiveRAG, LabelNaiveRAG, and SymbioticRAG—across literature review, geological exploration, and education scenarios, using a human-retriever distance D (Jaccard-based) and user satisfaction scores. The paper reports substantially lower D values and higher satisfaction for SymbioticRAG (D=0.52–0.61, S=3.67–4.13) than the baselines, and interprets this as evidence that interaction summaries better capture user intent. It also presents a case study illustrating a user's progression from 'unconscious incompetence' to 'conscious incompetence'.

Significance. If the reported effect were valid, the paper would make a useful contribution to human-centered RAG: the interface design (source-document verification, staging area, report generation) and the idea of leveraging interaction logs to personalize retrieval are timely and practically relevant. The document processing pipeline is described in concrete detail, and the human-on-the-loop validation interface is a sensible way to improve extraction quality. The paper also explicitly positions its Level 2 implementation as an experiment, which is honest. However, the central quantitative claim—that SymbioticRAG retrieval is closer to human-selected content than the baselines—is not supported by the evaluation as designed, due to the circular relationship between the retriever's inputs and the gold-standard labels. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the authors can provide a non-circular, statistically sound evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Eq. (1)] The main outcome metric D in Eq. (1) compares the set H of layout blocks selected by the evaluator with the retriever's top-k set R. In the SymbioticRAG condition, R is produced by augmenting the query with an LLM summary of the user's interaction logs, which include the same block selections that define H (Section 3.3). If the summary is generated from the same conversation being scored, R is partly constructed from H itself, and the reported D values (0.52–0.61) are inflated by construction. The paper's own statement that direct log concatenation was excluded because retrieval 'will converge to specific contents which already exists inside the user logs' acknowledges this dependence; an LLM summary reduces but does not eliminate it. The evaluation must impose a temporal split (for example, using only logs from earlier sessions) or compare against independently collected relevance judgments.
  2. [Section 4, evaluation protocol] The gold-standard set H is not collected independently of the system being evaluated. Participants select layout blocks after the retriever has displayed its top-k results in the UI, so H can be influenced by what R shows; this acquiescence effect applies to all strategies but is especially problematic for SymbioticRAG because the same displayed-and-clicked blocks also enter the intention summary. The paper needs to separate the measurement of user relevance from the retrieval display, for instance by asking users to judge relevance in a blinded setting or by using post-hoc relevance assessments that do not depend on the manipulated system.
  3. [Section 4, Table 1] The paper claims 'significant improvements' but reports no variance, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. With only three evaluators per scenario and five sessions per strategy, the aggregate D and S values in Table 1 could easily be driven by individual differences or session-level dependence. The authors should report per-session or per-evaluator results and apply appropriate paired tests or effect-size estimates with uncertainty; alternatively, the language should be softened to 'substantial differences' pending a larger study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (1)] The definition of D is underspecified: it is unclear whether H and R are computed per query, per conversation, or as an aggregate over all sessions in a scenario. This should be stated explicitly because it affects the interpretation of the numbers in Table 1.
  2. [Section 3.3] The evaluation does not state the value of k used in the actual user study. The text mentions 'currently k=5' in the system description, but the evaluation section should confirm that the same k was used for all three retrieval strategies and all sessions.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] 'Significant improvements' is used without statistical support. Either add formal tests or replace 'significant' with 'large' or 'substantial' to avoid overclaiming.
  4. [Figure 7] The figure contains a typo ('Analysze') and the case study is anecdotal; it is fine as an illustrative example but should be labeled as such rather than as validation.
  5. [Section 3.3] The sentence beginning 'We also tried to concatenate user logs directly with query...' is grammatically awkward and should be rewritten for clarity.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor capitalization inconsistencies for the baseline names (e.g., 'NaïveRAG' vs 'LabelNaïveRAG'), and the term 'LabelNaïveRAG' is sometimes written as 'Label NaiveRAG'. Please standardize.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline D improvement is partly circular: SymbioticRAG augments its query with an LLM summary of the same user-selection logs that define the gold-standard set H in Eq. (1), so the overlap |H∩R| is inflated by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (SymbioticRAG UI) and Section 4, Eq. (1) and Table 1]
    "During user interactions, we record engagement activities such as sending queries, clicking search results, selecting/deselecting blocks, navigating pages, manually adding documents, and liking/disliking or regenerating responses. These logs will inform our development of SymbioticRAG Level 2. We currently feed them into an LLM to generate a user-intention summary ... which is then concatenated with the query for semantic similarity search. ..."

    Eq. (1) defines D from H (blocks selected by humans) and R (blocks retrieved). SymbioticRAG's query is built from interaction logs that include the selecting/deselecting events constituting H. The paper reports no temporal split separating log accumulation from evaluated queries, so R is partly derived from the gold set it is scored against. The paper's own admission that raw log concatenation made retrieval converge to contents already in the logs shows the mechanism; the LLM summary attenuates but does not remove the dependence. Table 1's lower D values are therefore inflated by construction.

full rationale

The document-processing pipeline, retriever modularity, and Level 1 human-curation features are independent contributions and do not reduce to the evaluation metric. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. However, the central quantitative claim of improved retrieval relevance rests on a metric in which the SymbioticRAG retriever is constructed from the same interaction logs that define the human gold standard H. The paper's own remark that raw log concatenation converges to content already in the logs confirms the leakage mechanism, and no temporal split is reported that would make H and R independent. The LLM summarization weakens but does not eliminate the constructional overlap, so the reported improvements are partially forced by the evaluation design rather than by a genuinely independent prediction. This warrants a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on human-centered relevance being the correct target, on the four-stages-of-competence model, and on off-the-shelf models (E5, GPT-4o, DocLayout-YOLO, PaddleOCR) behaving as expected. The only explicit numeric design choice is k=5; there are no fitted statistical parameters. The most consequential unstated premise is that evaluator selections are an unbiased gold standard and that the LLM intention summary does not leak those selections back into the retriever.

free parameters (1)
  • top-k retrieval count k = 5
    The retriever returns k=5 layout blocks (Section 3.3). D and satisfaction depend on this cutoff, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption User-selected layout blocks are the ground truth for relevance (H in Eq. 1).
    The evaluation treats human selections as true relevant content without measuring inter-rater reliability or selection bias.
  • domain assumption The four stages of competence model applies to query formulation and can be used to interpret user behavior.
    Figure 2 and Section 1 invoke the Wikipedia model as the design motivation; it is not empirically validated in this study.
  • domain assumption E5 embeddings and semantic similarity are adequate for layout-block retrieval.
    NaiveRAG and LabelNaiveRAG rely on E5 embeddings; no retrieval quality benchmark is given.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-summarized interaction logs preserve user intent without simply copying selected content.
    The paper excludes the raw-log variant because it overfits to logged content, but gives no evidence that the LLM summary is independent of H.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SymbioticRAG: Enhancing Document Intelligence Through Human-LLM Symbiotic Collaboration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4WFZAEG

@misc{pith2026250502418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SymbioticRAG: Enhancing Document Intelligence Through Human-LLM Symbiotic Collaboration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4WFZAEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02418}
}
read the original abstract

We present \textbf{SymbioticRAG}, a novel framework that fundamentally reimagines Retrieval-Augmented Generation~(RAG) systems by establishing a bidirectional learning relationship between humans and machines. Our approach addresses two critical challenges in current RAG systems: the inherently human-centered nature of relevance determination and users' progression from "unconscious incompetence" in query formulation. SymbioticRAG introduces a two-tier solution where Level 1 enables direct human curation of retrieved content through interactive source document exploration, while Level 2 aims to build personalized retrieval models based on captured user interactions. We implement Level 1 through three key components: (1)~a comprehensive document processing pipeline with specialized models for layout detection, OCR, and extraction of tables, formulas, and figures; (2)~an extensible retriever module supporting multiple retrieval strategies; and (3)~an interactive interface that facilitates both user engagement and interaction data logging. We experiment Level 2 implementation via a retriever strategy incorporated LLM summarized user intention from user interaction logs. To maintain high-quality data preparation, we develop a human-on-the-loop validation interface that improves pipeline output while advancing research in specialized extraction tasks. Evaluation across three scenarios (literature review, geological exploration, and education) demonstrates significant improvements in retrieval relevance and user satisfaction compared to traditional RAG approaches. To facilitate broader research and further advancement of SymbioticRAG Level 2 implementation, we will make our system openly accessible to the research community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of SymbioticRAG system design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four stages of competence proposed by Noel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SymbioticRAG concept illustration 2). Human-selected content for each query then serves as training data, enabling the system to adapt to user intentions through explicit selection and in￾teraction patterns. 3). To bridge the gap between “Unconscious Incompetence” and “Conscious In￾competence” in query formulation, we propose maintaining shared access to source documents for both humans and LLMs. This allows users t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Human-on-the-loop validation interfaces for the document processing pipeline, supporting comprehensive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SymbioticRAG UI demonstration example the demo figure, selecting the first result jumps to page 14 (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Report generation interface example for Sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case Study in education scenario (Full Stack Developer Unit) with SymbioticRAG retriever. tems: the inherently human nature of relevance de￾termination and users’ struggle with Unconscious Incompetence when formulating queries in unfa￾miliar domains. Our framework intr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Hussein Abbass. 2024. Future directions in artificial intelligence research. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 5(12):5858--5862

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Dimacali, Ojasmitha Pedirappagari, Namyong Park, Franck Dernoncourt, Yu Wang, Nikos Kanakaris, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Ryan A

    Steven Au, Cameron J. Dimacali, Ojasmitha Pedirappagari, Namyong Park, Franck Dernoncourt, Yu Wang, Nikos Kanakaris, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Ryan A. Rossi, and Nesreen K. Ahmed. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02157 Personalized graph-based retrieval for large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2501.02157

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Yu Bai, Yukai Miao, Li Chen, Dawei Wang, Dan Li, Yanyu Ren, Hongtao Xie, Ce Yang, and Xuhui Cai. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00072 Pistis-rag: Enhancing retrieval-augmented generation with human feedback . Preprint, arXiv:2407.00072

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Carol L. Barry. 1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<149::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study . Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3):149--159

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199404)45:3 1994

  7. [7]

    Maciej Besta, Ales Kubicek, Roman Niggli, Robert Gerstenberger, Lucas Weitzendorf, Mingyuan Chi, Patrick Iff, Joanna Gajda, Piotr Nyczyk, Jürgen Müller, Hubert Niewiadomski, Marcin Chrapek, Michał Podstawski, and Torsten Hoefler. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05085 Multi-head rag: Solving multi-aspect problems with llms . Preprint, arXiv:2406.05085

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Miriana Calvano. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3661167.3661223 Design and evaluation of high-quality symbiotic ai systems through a human-centered approach . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE '24, page 488–493, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    arXiv 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/overview-of-the-trec-2021-deep-learning-track/ Overview of the trec 2021 deep learning track . In Text REtrieval Conference (TREC). NIST, TREC

    2022

  2. [10]

    Pankaj Dadure, Partha Pakray, and Sivaji Bandyopadhyay. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3699953 Mathematical information retrieval: A review . ACM Comput. Surv., 57(3)

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Anurag Dhote, Mohammed Javed, and David S Doermann. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05694 A survey on figure classification techniques in scientific documents . Preprint, arXiv:2307.05694

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yuning Du, Chenxia Li, Ruoyu Guo, Xiaoting Yin, Weiwei Liu, Jun Zhou, Yifan Bai, Zilin Yu, Yehua Yang, Qingqing Dang, and Haoshuang Wang. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09941 Pp-ocr: A practical ultra lightweight ocr system . Preprint, arXiv:2009.09941

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16130 From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization . Preprint, arXiv:2404.16130

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14831 Hipporag: Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2405.14831

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, Qi He, Zhigang Hua, Bo Long, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, Amin Javari, Yinglong Xia, and Jiliang Tang

    Haoyu Han, Yu Wang, Harry Shomer, Kai Guo, Jiayuan Ding, Yongjia Lei, Mahantesh Halappanavar, Ryan A. Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, Qi He, Zhigang Hua, Bo Long, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, Amin Javari, Yinglong Xia, and Jiliang Tang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh V Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=MPJ3oXtTZl G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering . In The Thirty-e...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and 1 others. 2024. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Xhavit Islami and Enis Mulolli. 2024. Human-artificial intelligence in management functions: A synergistic symbiosis relationship. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 38(1):2439615

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730 Survey of hallucination in natural language generation . ACM Comput. Surv., 55(12)

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oğuz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen tau Yih. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04906 Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering . Preprint, arXiv:2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Vinay Kulkarni, Sreedhar Reddy, Souvik Barat, and Jaya Dutta. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS58315.2023.00039 Toward a symbiotic approach leveraging generative ai for model driven engineering . In 2023 ACM/IEEE 26th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Lan...

    2023

  14. [22]

    J. C. R. Licklider. 1960. https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259 Man-computer symbiosis . IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1(1):4--11

    1960

  15. [23]

    Zhicheng Lin. 2024. Progress and challenges in the symbiosis of ai with science and medicine. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, pages e14222--e14222

    2024

  16. [24]

    Wendy E. Mackay. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3672539.3695752 Parasitic or symbiotic? redefining our relationship with intelligent systems . In Adjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST Adjunct '24, New York, NY, USA....

    2024

  17. [25]

    Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze

    Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press

    2008

  18. [26]

    Alessandro Petruzzelli. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640457.3688023 Towards symbiotic recommendations: Leveraging llms for conversational recommendation systems . In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys '24, page 1361–1367, New York, NY, USA....

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tefko Saracevic. 2019. The notion of relevance in information science

    2019

  20. [28]

    Xiang Shi, Jiawei Liu, Yinpeng Liu, Qikai Cheng, and Wei Lu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18626 Every part matters: Integrity verification of scientific figures based on multimodal large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.18626

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Brandon Smock, Rohith Pesala, and Robin Abraham. 2023. Aligning benchmark datasets for table structure recognition. pages 371--386

    2023

  22. [30]

    Qiang Sun, Yuanyi Luo, Wenxiao Zhang, Sirui Li, Jichunyang Li, Kai Niu, Xiangrui Kong, and Wei Liu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02962 Docs2kg: Unified knowledge graph construction from heterogeneous documents assisted by large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2406.02962

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Deep Search Team. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.09869 Docling technical report . Technical report

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Thanh-Nghia Truong, Cuong Tuan Nguyen, Richard Zanibbi, Harold Mouchère, and Masaki Nakagawa. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110531 A survey on handwritten mathematical expression recognition: The rise of encoder-decoder and gnn models . Pattern Recognition, 153:110531

    2024

  25. [33]

    Bin Wang, Chao Xu, Xiaomeng Zhao, Linke Ouyang, Fan Wu, Zhiyuan Zhao, Rui Xu, Kaiwen Liu, Yuan Qu, Fukai Shang, Bo Zhang, Liqun Wei, Zhihao Sui, Wei Li, Botian Shi, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, and Conghui He. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18839 Mineru: An open-source solution fo...

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03533 Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training . Preprint, arXiv:2212.03533

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Renqiu Xia, Song Mao, Xiangchao Yan, Hongbin Zhou, Bo Zhang, Haoyang Peng, Jiahao Pi, Daocheng Fu, Wenjie Wu, Hancheng Ye, and 1 others. 2024. Docgenome: An open large-scale scientific document benchmark for training and testing multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprin...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Saber Zerhoudi and Michael Granitzer. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09394 Personarag: Enhancing retrieval-augmented generation systems with user-centric agents . Preprint, arXiv:2407.09394

    2024

  29. [37]

    Qiu, and Lili Qiu

    Siyun Zhao, Yuqing Yang, Zilong Wang, Zhiyuan He, Luna K. Qiu, and Lili Qiu. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14924 Retrieval augmented generation (rag) and beyond: A comprehensive survey on how to make your llms use external data more wisely . Preprint, arXiv:2409.14924

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhiyuan Zhao, Hengrui Kang, Bin Wang, and Conghui He. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12628 Doclayout-yolo: Enhancing document layout analysis through diverse synthetic data and global-to-local adaptive perception . Preprint, arXiv:2410.12628

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiongnan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chenlong Deng, Haonan Chen, Zheng Liu, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Large language models for information retrieval: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07107

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.