pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04922 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 💻 cs.MA · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Evolving Idea Graphs with Learnable Edits-and-Commits for Multi-Agent Scientific Ideation

Jiangwen Dong , Bo Li , Wanyu Lin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA cs.AI
keywords multi-agent systemsscientific ideationidea graphsLLM agentsresearch proposal generationgraph-based coordinationedit and commit control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-agent AI systems generate stronger research ideas when they maintain an explicit graph of claims linked by support and conflict relations instead of coordinating through chat logs.

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

Current multi-agent setups for scientific ideation rely on temporary text such as drafts or conversation histories, which makes it hard to locate specific weaknesses or track how they get resolved. The paper introduces Evolving Idea Graphs that represent a developing proposal as nodes for individual claims and edges for relations like support or conflict. A two-head learned controller then selects which edits agents should perform on the graph and decides when the structure is ready to be committed into a final synthesized proposal. This persistent graph state keeps problems visible and actionable during refinement. Experiments on AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench show gains on automatic metrics for novelty, feasibility, and clarity plus higher blind expert ratings, with the graph representation providing the largest share of the benefit.

Core claim

The paper claims that representing partially formed research proposals as evolving idea graphs—where nodes are scientific claims and edges encode support or conflict relations—combined with a learned two-head controller that selects graph edits and determines commit timing, allows multi-agent systems to keep unresolved weaknesses identifiable throughout ideation and thereby produce higher-performing proposals than text-only coordination methods.

What carries the argument

The evolving idea graph together with its learned two-head edit-and-commit controller, in which one head chooses modifications for agents to execute and the other decides when the current graph can be synthesized into a final proposal.

If this is right

  • Agents can target and resolve specific unresolved conflicts or gaps marked in the graph rather than searching through diffuse text.
  • The system can autonomously determine when a proposal has reached sufficient coherence for final synthesis.
  • Most performance improvement comes from the persistent explicit state of the idea rather than from the multi-agent architecture alone.
  • Removing the learned controller reduces consistency of gains, showing that both the graph representation and the edit-commit policy matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same graph-based tracking of claims and contradictions could be applied to collaborative tasks outside science, such as engineering design reviews or policy drafting where hidden inconsistencies often arise.
  • Making the internal state of AI ideation inspectable through explicit relations may allow human experts to intervene more precisely by editing individual nodes or edges.
  • The approach implies that future multi-agent systems might benefit from storing intermediate reasoning in structured, queryable forms rather than discarding it in message histories.

Load-bearing premise

That an explicit graph of claims and relations keeps unresolved weaknesses identifiable and actionable in a way that temporary text coordination cannot.

What would settle it

Run the same multi-agent agents on identical ideation tasks once with only text chat logs and once with the evolving graph structure, then measure whether specific weaknesses are identified and addressed more reliably in the graph version.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04922 by Bo Li, Jiangwen Dong, Wanyu Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework of EIG. Benchmark input and permitted literature context initialize role view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mean post-round graph-signal tra￾jectories on the held-out EIG subset. Con￾tradiction falls early, while grounding and maturity keep improving on the later-round hard-case tail. Where the gains come from. The ablation table sup￾ports a layered interpretation of our framework. Re￾placing the relation-aware graph controller with a text￾only controller causes the largest drop among these controller variants: … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Round-wise controller action distribution on the 512-group held-out EIG evaluation subset. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

LLM-empowered multi-agent systems offer new potential to accelerate scientific discovery by generating novel research ideas. However, existing methods typically coordinate agents through temporary texts, such as drafts or chat logs; it is difficult to pinpoint the weaknesses in the generated ideas and how the agents refine them. To this end, we introduce \textbf{Evolving Idea Graphs} (EIG), a graph-based multi-agent scientific ideation framework that can generate high-performance research ideas across various benchmark-native metrics, such as novelty, feasibility, and clarity. Instead of coordinating solely through texts, EIG represents a partially formed proposal as an evolving idea graph, where nodes capture scientific claims and edges encode relations (e.g., support and conflict), enabling unresolved weaknesses to remain identifiable throughout the idea evolving process. Specifically, a learned two-head controller operates over the evolving graph to guide the ideation: one head selects graph edits for agents to execute, while the other decides when the graph is ready for commit as final proposal synthesis. On AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench, EIG outperforms all compared systems on both automatic benchmark scores and blind expert ratings. Ablations further show that explicit graph state provides the main performance gains, and learned edit-and-commit control adds consistent improvements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Evolving Idea Graphs (EIG), a multi-agent framework for scientific ideation in which partially formed proposals are represented as graphs with nodes as scientific claims and edges encoding support or conflict relations. A learned two-head controller selects graph edits for agents to perform and decides when the graph is ready to commit as a final synthesized proposal. The central claim is that maintaining this explicit graph structure keeps unresolved weaknesses identifiable and actionable throughout the process, unlike coordination via transient text. On AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench, EIG is reported to outperform all compared systems on automatic metrics (novelty, feasibility, clarity) and blind expert ratings, with ablations attributing the primary gains to the explicit graph state and additional improvements from the learned edit-and-commit control.

Significance. If the results and mechanism hold, EIG would represent a meaningful advance in structured multi-agent ideation by making idea weaknesses persistently visible and editable rather than buried in chat logs or drafts. The use of both automatic benchmarks and blind expert ratings, together with ablations isolating the graph-state contribution, provides a stronger empirical foundation than many prior multi-agent ideation papers. However, the significance is limited by the absence of direct evidence that agents actually exploit specific graph relations (e.g., resolving a conflict edge) rather than benefiting from generic structured prompting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'explicit graph state provides the main performance gains' and that the graph 'enables unresolved weaknesses to remain identifiable' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the reported evidence consists only of aggregate benchmark wins and high-level ablations. No analysis is presented (e.g., in the Ablations or Results sections) demonstrating that agents detect and act upon specific support/conflict edges, as opposed to any structured representation. This gap leaves the mechanistic explanation under-supported.
  2. [Results] Results / Experimental Setup: The manuscript states outperformance on AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench but supplies no details on baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, number of runs, or controls for prompt length and agent count. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported gains are robust or attributable to the EIG mechanism rather than implementation differences.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The notation for the two-head controller (edit head and commit head) is introduced without a clear diagram or pseudocode in the main text; a figure showing the controller's interface with the graph would improve readability.
  2. [Evaluation] The paper mentions 'various benchmark-native metrics' but does not tabulate the exact definitions or scoring rubrics used by the automatic evaluators; this should be added for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'explicit graph state provides the main performance gains' and that the graph 'enables unresolved weaknesses to remain identifiable' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the reported evidence consists only of aggregate benchmark wins and high-level ablations. No analysis is presented (e.g., in the Ablations or Results sections) demonstrating that agents detect and act upon specific support/conflict edges, as opposed to any structured representation. This gap leaves the mechanistic explanation under-supported.

    Authors: We agree that a finer-grained mechanistic analysis would strengthen the central claim. The current ablations isolate the contribution of the explicit graph state versus text-only coordination and show consistent gains, consistent with the design goal of keeping weaknesses identifiable via support/conflict edges. However, we did not include per-edge action traces or targeted case studies showing agents specifically resolving conflict edges. In the revision we will add such analysis, for example by logging and reporting the frequency of edit actions that target conflict edges and providing qualitative examples of how the controller uses these relations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / Experimental Setup: The manuscript states outperformance on AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench but supplies no details on baseline implementations, statistical significance tests, number of runs, or controls for prompt length and agent count. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported gains are robust or attributable to the EIG mechanism rather than implementation differences.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of these experimental details. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Experimental Setup and Results sections to include: (1) precise descriptions of how each baseline was implemented and prompted to ensure comparable agent counts and total prompt length; (2) the number of independent runs performed (we will report results over 5 runs); (3) statistical significance testing (paired t-tests with p-values); and (4) explicit controls confirming that prompt budgets and agent numbers were matched across conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance and mechanism claims rest on external benchmarks and ablations

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical multi-agent framework whose core contribution is the design of an evolving idea graph (nodes as claims, edges as support/conflict relations) coordinated by a learned two-head edit-and-commit controller. All reported results—outperformance on AI Idea Bench 2025, LiveIdeaBench, automatic metrics, and blind expert ratings—are measured against independent external test sets. Ablations attribute gains to explicit graph state versus text-only baselines, but these are comparative experiments, not quantities defined by the method's own fitted parameters. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked to derive the identifiability property; it is presented as an architectural choice whose utility is tested rather than presupposed. No step reduces a prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract introduces the graph representation and controller but does not specify numerical parameters, background axioms, or new physical entities.

invented entities (1)
  • Evolving Idea Graph no independent evidence
    purpose: Represent partially formed research proposals so that weaknesses remain identifiable via support and conflict edges
    Core representational innovation described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5524 in / 1110 out tokens · 60482 ms · 2026-05-08T15:30:40.019444+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time

    Michael Park, Erin Leahey, and Russell J Funk. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942):138–144, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Under review

    Jiaqi Wei, Yuejin Yang, Xiang Zhang, Yuhan Chen, Xiang Zhuang, Zhangyang Gao, Dongzhan Zhou, Guangshuai Wang, Zhiqiang Gao, Juntai Cao, et al. From ai for science to agentic science: A survey on autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14111, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Paperrobot: Incremental draft generation of scientific ideas

    Qingyun Wang, Lifu Huang, Zhiying Jiang, Kevin Knight, Heng Ji, Mohit Bansal, and Yi Luan. Paperrobot: Incremental draft generation of scientific ideas. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1980–1991, 2019

    1980

  4. [4]

    Exploring and verbalizing academic ideas by concept co-occurrence

    Yi Xu, Shuqian Sheng, Bo Xue, Luoyi Fu, Xinbing Wang, and Chenghu Zhou. Exploring and verbalizing academic ideas by concept co-occurrence. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13001–13027, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Interesting scientific idea generation using knowledge graphs and llms: Evaluations with 100 research group leaders.arXiv:2405.17044, 2024

    Xuemei Gu and Mario Krenn. Interesting scientific idea generation using knowledge graphs and llms: Evaluations with 100 research group leaders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17044, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Scideator: Human-llm scientific idea generation grounded in research-paper facet recombination.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14634, 2024

    Marissa Radensky, Simra Shahid, Raymond Fok, Pao Siangliulue, Tom Hope, and Daniel S Weld. Scideator: Human-llm scientific idea generation grounded in research-paper facet recombination.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14634, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Scipip: An llm-based scientific paper idea proposer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166, 2024

    Wenxiao Wang, Lihui Gu, Liye Zhang, Yunxiang Luo, Yi Dai, Chen Shen, Liang Xie, Binbin Lin, Xiaofei He, and Jieping Ye. Scipip: An llm-based scientific paper idea proposer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Many heads are better than one: Improved scientific idea generation by a llm-based multi-agent system

    Haoyang Su, Renqi Chen, Shixiang Tang, Zhenfei Yin, Xinzhe Zheng, Jinzhe Li, Biqing Qi, Qi Wu, Hui Li, Wanli Ouyang, et al. Many heads are better than one: Improved scientific idea generation by a llm-based multi-agent system. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 28201–28240, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Ai idea bench 2025: Ai research idea generation benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14191, 2025

    Yansheng Qiu, Haoquan Zhang, Zhaopan Xu, Ming Li, Diping Song, Zheng Wang, and Kaipeng Zhang. Ai idea bench 2025: Ai research idea generation benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14191, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Evaluating llms’ divergent thinking capabilities for scientific idea generation with minimal context.Nature Communications, 2026

    Kai Ruan, Xuan Wang, Jixiang Hong, Peng Wang, Yang Liu, and Hao Sun. Evaluating llms’ divergent thinking capabilities for scientific idea generation with minimal context.Nature Communications, 2026

    2026

  11. [11]

    Discoverybench: Towards data-driven discovery with large language models

    Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Harshit Surana, Dhruv Agarwal, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Abhijeetsingh Meena, Aryan Prakhar, Tirth V ora, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, and Peter Clark. Discoverybench: Towards data-driven discovery with large language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Discoveryworld: A virtual environment for developing and evaluating automated scientific discovery agents

    Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Tushar Khot, Erin Bransom, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Bod- hisattwa Prasad Majumder, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. Discoveryworld: A virtual environment for developing and evaluating automated scientific discovery agents. InThe Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Can LLMs generate novel research ideas? a large- scale human study with 100+ NLP researchers

    Chenglei Si, Diyi Yang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Can LLMs generate novel research ideas? a large- scale human study with 100+ NLP researchers. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversations

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst conference on language modeling, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    CAMEL: Communicative agents for ”mind” exploration of large language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. CAMEL: Communicative agents for ”mind” exploration of large language model society. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors

    Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chi-Min Chan, Heyang Yu, Yaxi Lu, Yi-Hsin Hung, Chen Qian, Yujia Qin, Xin Cong, Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 11

    2024

  18. [18]

    Scaling large language model-based multi-agent collaboration

    Chen Qian, Zihao Xie, YiFei Wang, Wei Liu, Kunlun Zhu, Hanchen Xia, Yufan Dang, Zhuoyun Du, Weize Chen, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Scaling large language model-based multi-agent collaboration. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models

    Jinheon Baek, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Silviu Cucerzan, and Sung Ju Hwang. Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pag...

    2025

  20. [20]

    Motivgraph-soiq: Integrating motivational knowledge graphs and socratic dialogue for enhanced LLM ideation

    Xinping Lei, Tong Zhou, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Motivgraph-soiq: Integrating motivational knowledge graphs and socratic dialogue for enhanced LLM ideation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 2913–2933, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Informati...

    2023

  24. [24]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik R Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik R Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Language agent tree search unifies reasoning, acting, and planning in language models

    Andy Zhou, Kai Yan, Michal Shlapentokh-Rothman, Haohan Wang, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Language agent tree search unifies reasoning, acting, and planning in language models. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Chatdev: Communicative agents for software development

    Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, et al. Chatdev: Communicative agents for software development. InProceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers), pages 15174–15186, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Exploring the design of multi-agent llm dialogues for research ideation

    Keisuke Ueda, Wataru Hirota, Kosuke Takahashi, Takahiro Omi, Kosuke Arima, and Tatsuya Ishigaki. Exploring the design of multi-agent llm dialogues for research ideation. InProceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 322–337, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 17682–17690, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Plan-on-graph: Self- correcting adaptive planning of large language model on knowledge graphs

    Liyi Chen, Panrong Tong, Zhongming Jin, Ying Sun, Jieping Ye, and Hui Xiong. Plan-on-graph: Self- correcting adaptive planning of large language model on knowledge graphs. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    Agent planning with world knowledge model

    Shuofei Qiao, Runnan Fang, Ningyu Zhang, Yuqi Zhu, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. Agent planning with world knowledge model. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    S-dag: A subject-based directed acyclic graph for multi-agent heterogeneous reasoning

    Jiangwen Dong, Zehui Lin, Wanyu Lin, and Mingjin Zhang. S-dag: A subject-based directed acyclic graph for multi-agent heterogeneous reasoning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 29394–29402, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    G-memory: Tracing hierarchical memory for multi-agent systems

    Guibin Zhang, Muxin Fu, Kun Wang, Guancheng Wan, Miao Yu, and Shuicheng YAN. G-memory: Tracing hierarchical memory for multi-agent systems. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2026

    2026

  34. [34]

    Hybridflow: Resource-adaptive subtask routing for efficient edge-cloud llm inference,

    Jiangwen Dong, Jiayu Li, Tianhang Zheng, and Wanyu Lin. Hybridflow: Resource-adaptive subtask routing for efficient edge-cloud llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22137, 2025. 12

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    stress-testing

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982–3992, 2019. 13 A Appendix Contents The appendix is organized as follo...

    2019

  37. [37]

    Read the benchmark context first

  38. [38]

    Read all anonymized proposals for the same benchmark instance before scoring

  39. [39]

    Score each proposal independently on all six criteria

  40. [40]

    After assigning scores, provide a forced overall ranking of all proposals for the same benchmark group

  41. [41]

    Do not reward a proposal for being longer unless the extra detail improves scientific content

  42. [42]

    Penalize proposals that invent unsupported context, ignore the benchmark topic, or provide only generic method names without a concrete validation plan

  43. [43]

    Scope of validation

    If two proposals are similar, use feasibility, context adherence, and evaluation specificity to break ties. J.5 Scoring Rubric Scoring process.Reviewers first read the benchmark context, then read all anonymized proposals for the same group, and finally score each proposal independently on a 1–5 integer scale. The packet instructs reviewers to use the ful...

    2025

  44. [44]

    Reviewer Pool

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...