Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper presents HVR-Met, a multi-agent system that automates extreme weather diagnosis through a hypothesis-verification-replanning loop, achieving reported pass rates of 71.86% for index computation, 79.52% for figure generation, and 8

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:42 UTC pith:C7OVLXYP

load-bearing objection A well-specified meteorological agent with a useful benchmark, but the headline pass rate is arithmetically incompatible with its own Table 1, and the subtask benchmark shares its source corpus with the knowledge base. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.01121 v2 pith:C7OVLXYP submitted 2026-03-01 cs.AI

HVR-Met: A Hypothesis-Verification-Replanning Agentic System for Extreme Weather Diagnosis

Shuo Tang , Jiadong Zhang , Gengxian Zhou , Qizhao Jin , Qinxuan Wang , Yi Hu , Ning Hu , Hongchang Ren
show 6 more authors
Lingli He Shiming Xiang Jingtao Ding Jian Xu Jiaolan Fu Cheng-Lin Liu
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords extreme weather diagnosismulti-agent systemhypothesis-verification-replanningmeteorological knowledge basebenchmarkindex computationfigure generationdiagnostic reporting
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.

The paper tries to show that an AI agent system can perform operational extreme weather diagnosis end to end, not just forecast. It argues that the missing piece is professional knowledge plus an iterative reasoning loop that revises hypotheses when evidence does not match. The system, HVR-Met, combines a domain guideline library built from 584 expert papers with a closed-loop mechanism that generates, verifies, and replans diagnostic pathways. The authors claim strong pass rates on a new benchmark of index computation, figure generation, and report writing, suggesting that routine diagnostic work could be delegated to agents while forecasters supervise.

Core claim

The central claim is that a multi-agent framework with a 'Hypothesis–Verification–Replanning' loop can emulate the cognitive workflow of expert forecasters and produce professional-grade extreme weather diagnoses. The system decomposes a query into tasks, retrieves relevant diagnostic templates from a knowledge base of 584 papers, computes indices and plots figures, checks physical alignment, and replans when evidence contradicts the hypothesis. Across 100 end-to-end events and 250 atomic subtasks, the system achieves 71.86% pass rate on index computation, 79.52% on figure generation, and 85% on final diagnostic reporting, with ablation studies showing that removing any core agent or the gui

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the Hypothesis–Verification–Replanning (HVR) closed loop: after an initial physical hypothesis is formed from detected anomalies, the system computes indices and renders figures to verify it, then compares evidence against expectations; if the evidence fails, it rejects the hypothesis, updates memory, and queries the guideline library for an alternative causal mechanism, repeating until a consistent explanation is found. The second key component is the Guideline Library, a structured knowledge base of diagnostic indices and figure types per weather type, extracted semi-automatically from 584 papers and verified by five senior forecasters.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark and the knowledge base both draw on the same 584-paper corpus, so the reported pass rates may partly reflect retrieval of known material rather than independent diagnostic reasoning.

What would settle it

Construct a fresh benchmark from extreme-weather analyses published after the knowledge base was frozen, ensuring zero overlap with the 584-paper corpus, and check whether index, figure, and report pass rates remain near 71.86%, 79.52%, and 85%; a large drop would show the original numbers overstate generalization.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the reported pass rates hold, operational forecasters could delegate routine diagnostic steps to the agent, reducing manual workload and human error in time-sensitive extreme weather events.
  • The HVR loop's iterative replanning can be reused in other scientific domains where a hypothesis must be tested against heterogeneous data and tools.
  • The atomic-level benchmark enables fine-grained evaluation of separate diagnostic capabilities, potentially becoming a standard testbed for weather AI systems.
  • The ablation results show that domain knowledge integration and closed-loop verification are essential for reliable agentic diagnosis, not optional enhancements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same architecture could generalize beyond meteorology to other high-stakes diagnostic fields (e.g., climate impact assessment, hydrology, or even medical triage) where expert knowledge bases and iterative hypothesis testing are available.
  • The reported pass rates might overstate generalizability because the benchmark and the knowledge base draw from the same 584-paper corpus; a truly held-out corpus of newer or differently sourced papers would test whether the system reasons or retrieves.
  • The replanning loop's benefit likely depends on the quality of the verification signals; if the evidence checker is noisy, the loop could falsely reject valid hypotheses, suggesting that improving the VLM-based verification would yield outsized gains.
  • A practical extension would be a live deployment with forecaster feedback, measuring how often the agent's final report survives expert review without modification.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HVR-Met, a multi-agent system for extreme weather diagnosis that combines a semi-automatically constructed Guideline Library (derived from 584 papers and expert-verified), seven specialized agents, and a Hypothesis–Verification–Replanning (HVR) loop. The authors also introduce a benchmark consisting of 100 end-to-end extreme weather cases, 150 index-computation tasks, and 100 figure-generation tasks, and report high performance for a GPT-5-based configuration, including pass rates of 71.86% for index computation, 79.52% for figure generation, and 85% for final reporting. The central contribution claims are the HVR mechanism, the domain-knowledge integration, the new benchmark, and the reported quantitative results.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible and the benchmark is not contaminated, the paper would be a meaningful advance in agentic meteorological diagnosis: it integrates domain knowledge acquisition, iterative verification, and a fine-grained evaluation suite, with expert validation by five senior forecasters. The ablation study usefully demonstrates the contribution of the Decomposer, Image Checker, Diagnostician, and knowledge bases. However, the absence of code/data release, the unresolved benchmark-leakage question, and the lack of a clear derivation for the headline pass-rate figures prevent a full assessment of the claimed robustness.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1, §4, Table 1] The paper states in §4 that 'a score greater than 4 is considered a pass' and in Table 1 reports a mean Final Report score of 3.94 for the full GPT-5 framework, yet the Contributions (§1) and Conclusion claim an 85% final-report pass rate. No pass-rate computation, score distribution, or exact threshold definition is given. Under a natural integer 0–5 rubric, a mean of 3.94 is incompatible with an 85% pass rate when pass requires a score of 5 (minimum possible mean = 0.85×5 = 4.25). If fractional scores are allowed, the mean alone does not establish the 85% figure. Please report the actual pass-rate calculation, the score discretization, the distribution, and reconcile the headline number with Table 1.
  2. [§3.1 vs §4] The Guideline Library is built from 584 papers (§3.1), and the sub-task benchmark is 'derived from 584 extreme weather analysis papers' (§4). The gold-standard figures, QA pairs, and plotting captions are thus sampled from the same corpus that supplies the system's knowledge base. This creates a likely leakage channel: for the Plotter sub-task, the system is directly given captions from that corpus, and the index QA pairs target indices catalogued in the library. The statement that the end-to-end dataset is independent from the sub-task corpus does not address this, because the sub-task benchmarks themselves are not shown to be independent of the knowledge-base corpus. Please provide a concrete decontamination analysis (e.g., a source-level or temporal split, or a list confirming disjoint papers) and, if leakage remains, re-evaluate the affected claims.
  3. [§5.3, §4] The aggregate sub-task accuracies of 71.86% and 79.52% are not traceable to the reported experimental results. Table 5 and Figure 4 give per-difficulty-tier accuracies only, and no formula is provided for combining them into the claimed aggregates. Additionally, the acceptance criterion in §4 is written as 'GT−Reply / GT < 0.05', which lacks an absolute-value operator (and the GT=0 case uses 'Reply < 0.05'). Please define the aggregate metric explicitly, report the number of tasks in each tier, and include per-index/per-figure-type breakdowns so the headline numbers are reproducible.
  4. [General reproducibility] No code, benchmark items, model outputs, or evaluation scripts are released. The human-alignment validation on 20% of the end-to-end data is described only as 'high correlation', with no coefficient, agreement metric, or methodology. For a paper whose central claims are quantitative and operational, this level of disclosure prevents independent verification. Please provide a public artifact with the benchmark, scoring code, and detailed human-alignment statistics, or otherwise substantially expand the supplementary material.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] Title misspells 'Replanning' as 'Replaning'; the correct spelling is used in the body.
  2. [§5.3] Heading 'Automic-level' should be 'Atomic-level'; also 'calcalation' is a typo for 'calculation'.
  3. [§4] The relative-error formula should use an absolute value: |GT−Reply|/|GT| < 0.05; for GT=0, the absolute error constraint should be |Reply| < 0.05.
  4. [Figures] The references to Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the text appear mismatched with the actual figures; please check the numbering throughout.
  5. [General] A Limitations section discussing benchmark scope, potential language/regional bias, and the system's dependence on the knowledge-base corpus would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Sub-task benchmark shares its source corpus with the Guideline Library, and the Image Checker is graded on criteria written into its own prompt; the end-to-end report claim is not circular but is internally inconsistent.

specific steps
  1. other [§3.1 (Guideline Library construction) vs §4 (sub-task benchmark construction)]
    "§3.1: "To semi-automatically construct the Guideline Library, we collect 584 papers on extreme weather diagnosis... with an emphasis on image caption, figure type, and the diagnostic indices." §4: "we present a multi-faceted semi-synthetic benchmark derived from 584 extreme weather analysis papers... We select 100 ‘gold standard’ images from the literature.""

    The knowledge base that plans index/figure selection is extracted from the same 584-paper corpus from which the sub-task benchmark's gold figures and QA material are drawn. The reported index (71.86%) and figure (79.52%) pass rates therefore partly measure retrieval/recall of the benchmark's own source literature rather than generalization to unseen diagnostic material. The paper's independence claim covers only the end-to-end dataset versus sub-task datasets, not the sub-task benchmark versus the Guideline Library corpus.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix, Image Checker system prompt (Fig. 9) vs Figure scoring rubric (Fig. 12); §5.4 ablation]
    "Image Checker prompt: "For 500hPa Height: Suggest intervals of 40 gpm (e.g., 5880, 5840)." Figure rubric: "It employs meteorologically standard contour intervals (e.g., 40 gpm, 4 hPa)." Ablation: "Ablating the Image Checker specifically degrades visual quality Figure score drops from 4.13 to 2.98.""

    The Image Checker is instructed to enforce the same concrete stylistic standards (40 gpm/4 hPa contours, Gaussian smoothing, export/typography rules) that the Figure scoring rubric rewards. The ablation then reports that removing this agent lowers the Figure score; however the component was designed against the metric, so the measured benefit is partly by construction. This inflates the component-level evidence for the Image Checker, though it does not directly bear on the end-to-end Report claim.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the related-work citations (AG2, prior agent frameworks) are ordinary and the core HVR loop is described from first principles. The strongest circularity concern is benchmark-source overlap: the Guideline Library and the sub-task benchmark are both built from the same 584-paper corpus, making the sub-task accuracy numbers partially self-referential. The Image Checker ablation is also graded on criteria embedded in its own prompt. The end-to-end Report result is constructed from an independent 100-event set, but the claimed 85% pass rate is arithmetically incompatible with Table 1's mean Report score of 3.94 under the stated >4 pass threshold; that is an internal-consistency/correctness problem, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score further. Overall, the central architecture is not circular, but two evaluation claims are partly forced by construction, giving a score of 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central performance claim rests on hand-set evaluation thresholds, the correctness of the benchmark's ground truths, and the assumption that automated VLM/LLM judges are valid proxies for expert evaluation. No new physical entities or fitted physical parameters are introduced; the only free parameters are scoring thresholds.

free parameters (2)
  • Index-calculation acceptance threshold = relative error < 0.05 (absolute < 0.05 when GT=0)
    Determines the 71.86% index pass rate; no sensitivity analysis or robustness check is reported (Section 4).
  • Final-report pass threshold = score > 4 on 0–5 rubric
    Determines the 85% report pass rate; only mean scores (e.g., 3.94 for GPT-5) are shown in Table 1, so the pass-rate mapping is not transparent (Section 4, Table 1).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption WeatherBench2/ERA5 reanalysis data faithfully represents the atmospheric state of the diagnosed events.
    All data retrieval, index computation, and plotting are grounded in this dataset; invoked throughout §3.2–3.3 and in the Decomposer/Data Specialist prompts in the Appendix.
  • domain assumption The 584-paper corpus plus five senior forecasters defines correct operational diagnostic knowledge.
    The Guideline Library entries and the benchmark's QA ground truths are both built from this same corpus (§3.1, §4).
  • domain assumption VLM/LLM judges can score figures and reports with fidelity comparable to expert meteorologists.
    Figure semantic-integrity scoring and final-report scoring both use automated judges; the paper asserts high correlation from a 20% human sample but reports no coefficient (§4).
  • domain assumption The five extreme weather categories (gale, rainstorm, snowstorm, cold wave, heat wave) form a complete and balanced taxonomy for the benchmark.
    The benchmark uses 20 cases per category and does not cover compound or rare event types (§5.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15911 in / 13426 out tokens · 122916 ms · 2026-08-02T19:42:07.929126+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HVR-Met: A Hypothesis-Verification-Replanning Agentic System for Extreme Weather Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7OVLXYP

@misc{pith2026260301121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HVR-Met: A Hypothesis-Verification-Replanning Agentic System for Extreme Weather Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7OVLXYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.01121}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

While deep learning-based weather forecasting paradigms have made significant strides, addressing extreme weather diagnostics remains a formidable challenge. This gap exists primarily because the diagnostic process demands sophisticated multi-step logical reasoning, dynamic tool invocation, and expert-level prior judgment. Although agents possess inherent advantages in task decomposition and autonomous execution, current architectures are still hampered by critical bottlenecks: inadequate expert knowledge integration, a lack of professional-grade iterative reasoning loops, and the absence of fine-grained validation and evaluation systems for complex workflows under extreme conditions. To this end, we propose HVR-Met, a multi-agent meteorological diagnostic system characterized by the deep integration of expert knowledge. Its central innovation is the ``Hypothesis-Verification-Replanning'' closed-loop mechanism, which facilitates sophisticated iterative reasoning for anomalous meteorological signals during extreme weather events. To bridge gaps within existing evaluation frameworks, we further introduce a novel benchmark focused on atomic-level subtasks. Experimental evidence demonstrates that the system excels in complex diagnostic scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01121 by Cheng-Lin Liu, Gengxian Zhou, Hongchang Ren, Jiadong Zhang, Jian Xu, Jiaolan Fu, Jingtao Ding, Lingli He, Ning Hu, Qinxuan Wang, Qizhao Jin, Shiming Xiang, Shuo Tang, Yi Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the HVR-Met Framework. Designed to emulate the professional “Weather Consultation” process, HVR-Met is a multi-agent system that automates extreme weather diagnosis through a dynamic Hypothesis–Verification–Replanning loop. The framework orchestrates seven specialized agents to collaboratively execute diagnostic tasks: the Decomposer for strategic planning, the Data Specialist and Code Executor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Verification Pipeline for Figure Generation. We evaluate the “meteorological semantic integrity” of agent-generated visualizations via two parallel tracks: (1) Ground Truth Construction (Top Branch): “Gold standard” figures are extracted from meteorological literature, and a VLM generates binary QA pairs (e.g., checking for specific anomalies like vortices) which are rigorously verified by senior forec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Evaluation Pipeline for Meteorological Index Computation. This framework quantifies the agent’s numerical precision against human-verified standards. The workflow pro￾ceeds in three stages: (1) Ground Truth Construction (Top-Left): Situational questions are formulated via LLMs (GPT), while the ground-truth values (GT) are derived from raw data using expert￾grade programs. (2) Agent Inference (Top-Right… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance Evaluation by Task Type. Comparison of model accuracy on (a) Index Calculation tasks and (b) Figure Extraction tasks. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Guide Library Example: metpy.calc.precipitable water. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: System prompt for the Lead Meteorological Strategist (Decomposer). 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: System prompt for the Meteorological Execution Manager (Executor) with unit-safety and vectorized logic. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Selection logic and operational constraints for the Code Executor agent. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System prompt for Image Checker. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scoring criteria for hypothesis. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Data retrieval scoring criterion based on variable completeness and spatiotemporal accuracy. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Meteorological visualization scoring criterion. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Meteorological index calculation scoring criterion based on relative error ϵ. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Scoring criteria for anomaly field diagnostic reports. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples of Image-based and Index-based Meteorological Question Answering. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. TerraBench: Can Agents Reason Over Heterogeneous Earth-System Data?

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    TerraBench provides 403 executable tasks across three tracks to evaluate agents on unified Earth-system reasoning with tool-use and tolerance-aware metrics.

  2. TerraBench: Can Agents Reason Over Heterogeneous Earth-System Data?

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    TerraBench is a new benchmark with 403 tasks across Earth-science domains that evaluates LLM agents on coordinating heterogeneous data using executable ReAct-style workflows and process-level metrics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Intern-s1: A scientific multimodal foundation model

    Bai, L., Cai, Z., Cao, Y., Cao, M., Cao, W., Chen, C., Chen, H., Chen, K., Chen, P., Chen, Y., et al. Intern-s1: A scientific multimodal foundation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15763, 2025 a

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Qwen3-vl technical report

    Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., et al. Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025 b

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3d neural networks

    Bi, K., Xie, L., Zhang, H., Chen, X., Gu, X., and Tian, Q. Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3d neural networks. Nature, 619 0 (7970): 0 533--538, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    P., Lucic, A., Stanley, M., Allen, A., Brandstetter, J., Garvan, P., Riechert, M., Weyn, J

    Bodnar, C., Bruinsma, W. P., Lucic, A., Stanley, M., Allen, A., Brandstetter, J., Garvan, P., Riechert, M., Weyn, J. A., Dong, H., et al. A foundation model for the earth system. Nature, pp.\ 1--8, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    The operational medium-range deterministic weather forecasting can be extended beyond a 10-day lead time

    Chen, K., Han, T., Ling, F., Gong, J., Bai, L., Wang, X., Luo, J.-J., Fei, B., Zhang, W., Chen, X., et al. The operational medium-range deterministic weather forecasting can be extended beyond a 10-day lead time. Communications Earth & Environment, 6 0 (1): 0 518, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Fuxi: a cascade machine learning forecasting system for 15-day global weather forecast

    Chen, L., Zhong, X., Zhang, F., Cheng, Y., Xu, Y., Qi, Y., and Li, H. Fuxi: a cascade machine learning forecasting system for 15-day global weather forecast. npj climate and atmospheric science, 6 0 (1): 0 190, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Ewe: An agentic framework for extreme weather analysis

    Jiang, Z., Wang, J., Yue, X., Guo, Z., Zhang, W., Ling, F., Ouyang, W., and Bai, L. Ewe: An agentic framework for extreme weather analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21444, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Genegpt: Augmenting large language models with domain tools for improved access to biomedical information

    Jin, Q., Yang, Y., Chen, Q., and Lu, Z. Genegpt: Augmenting large language models with domain tools for improved access to biomedical information. Bioinformatics, 40 0 (2): 0 btae075, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Climateagent: Multi-agent orchestration for complex climate data science workflows

    Kim, H., Li, C., Deng, W., Jin, M., Huang, W., Lu, M., and Yuan, B. Climateagent: Multi-agent orchestration for complex climate data science workflows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20109, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Fourcastnet: Accelerating global high-resolution weather forecasting using adaptive fourier neural operators

    Kurth, T., Subramanian, S., Harrington, P., Pathak, J., Mardani, M., Hall, D., Miele, A., Kashinath, K., and Anandkumar, A. Fourcastnet: Accelerating global high-resolution weather forecasting using adaptive fourier neural operators. In Proceedings of the platform for advanced scientific computing conference, pp.\ 1--11, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting

    Lam, R., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Willson, M., Wirnsberger, P., Fortunato, M., Alet, F., Ravuri, S., Ewalds, T., Eaton-Rosen, Z., Hu, W., et al. Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science, 382 0 (6677): 0 1416--1421, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Crafting papers on machine learning

    Langley, P. Crafting papers on machine learning. In Langley, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000), pp.\ 1207--1216, Stanford, CA, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann

    2000

  13. [13]

    Deepcode: Open agentic coding, 2025

    Li, Z., Li, Z., Guo, Z., Ren, X., and Huang, C. Deepcode: Open agentic coding, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07921

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    and Wang, J

    Lu, Y. and Wang, J. Karma: Leveraging multi-agent llms for automated knowledge graph enrichment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06472, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    N., and Petroliagis, T

    Molteni, F., Buizza, R., Palmer, T. N., and Petroliagis, T. The ecmwf ensemble prediction system: Methodology and validation. Quarterly journal of the royal meteorological society, 122 0 (529): 0 73--119, 1996

    1996

  16. [16]

    K., and Grover, A

    Nguyen, T., Brandstetter, J., Kapoor, A., Gupta, J. K., and Grover, A. Climax: A foundation model for weather and climate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10343, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Scaling transformer neural networks for skillful and reliable medium-range weather forecasting

    Nguyen, T., Shah, R., Bansal, H., Arcomano, T., Maulik, R., Kotamarthi, R., Foster, I., Madireddy, S., and Grover, A. Scaling transformer neural networks for skillful and reliable medium-range weather forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 68740--68771, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Niu, J., Liu, Z., Gu, Z., Wang, B., Ouyang, L., Zhao, Z., Chu, T., He, T., Wu, F., Zhang, Q., et al. Mineru2. 5: A decoupled vision-language model for efficient high-resolution document parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22186, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    R., El-Kadi, A., Masters, D., Ewalds, T., Stott, J., Mohamed, S., Battaglia, P., et al

    Price, I., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Alet, F., Andersson, T. R., El-Kadi, A., Masters, D., Ewalds, T., Stott, J., Mohamed, S., Battaglia, P., et al. Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning. Nature, 637 0 (8044): 0 84--90, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    C., Johnson, W

    Qu, Y., Huang, K., Yin, M., Zhan, K., Liu, D., Yin, D., Cousins, H. C., Johnson, W. A., Wang, X., Shah, M., et al. Crispr-gpt for agentic automation of gene-editing experiments. Nature Biomedical Engineering, pp.\ 1--14, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Agent laboratory: Using llm agents as research assistants

    Schmidgall, S., Su, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, X., Wu, J., Yu, X., Liu, J., Liu, Z., and Barsoum, E. Agent laboratory: Using llm agents as research assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04227, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    V., Novack, Z., et al

    Varambally, S., Fisher, M., Thakker, J., Chen, Y., Xia, Z., Jafari, Y., Niu, R., Jain, M., Manivannan, V. V., Novack, Z., et al. Zephyrus: An agentic framework for weather science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04017, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Ag2: Open-source agentos for ai agents, 2024

    Wang, C., Wu, Q., and the AG2 Community. Ag2: Open-source agentos for ai agents, 2024. URL https://github.com/ag2ai/ag2. Available at https://docs.ag2.ai/

    2024

  24. [24]

    H., Chen, Y., Guo, H., Zhu, F., Shao, Y., Ren, M., Yi, H., Lian, S., et al

    Wang, X., Xu, J., Feng, A. H., Chen, Y., Guo, H., Zhu, F., Shao, Y., Ren, M., Yi, H., Lian, S., et al. The hitchhiker’s guide to autonomous research: A survey of scientific agents. TechRxiv.August 07, 2025. DOI:10.36227/techrxiv175459840.02185500/V1, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Matplotagent: Method and evaluation for llm-based agentic scientific data visualization, 2024

    Yang, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, S., Cong, X., Han, X., Yan, Y., Liu, Z., Tan, Z., Liu, P., Yu, D., Liu, Z., Shi, X., and Sun, M. Matplotagent: Method and evaluation for llm-based agentic scientific data visualization, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Deepanalyze: Agentic large language models for autonomous data science, 2025

    Zhang, S., Fan, J., Fan, M., Li, G., and Du, X. Deepanalyze: Agentic large language models for autonomous data science, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16872

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    I., and Wang, J

    Zhang, Y., Long, M., Chen, K., Xing, L., Jin, R., Jordan, M. I., and Wang, J. Skilful nowcasting of extreme precipitation with nowcastnet. Nature, 619 0 (7970): 0 526--532, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    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 format.date year duplicate empty "emp...