Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Personalized Deep Research Query Refinement with Graph-Scaffolded Evidence Grounding

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read G-STEER refines a deep research query into a personalized research specification by deciding when to retrieve memory, ask the user, or stop, and reports the strongest weighted target coverage and downstream personalization across two…

desk verdict G-STEER is a genuinely useful training framework with real evidence for its design, but the abstract's strongest-coverage claim rides a single cosine threshold and a single seed, so read that sentence as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05876 v1 pith:SORCZ6JZ submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI cs.CL

Soojin Yoon , Dongha Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords personalizeddeepresearchqueryrefinementintentelicitationgraphevidencegroundingclarificationpolicyretrieve-ask-stoptarget-anchoredoptimizationreinforcementlearning
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

This paper is trying to establish that personalized deep research can be achieved by refining the user's initial request before it reaches an otherwise unchanged deep research agent, rather than by modifying the agent's internals. The proposed G-STEER method organizes user-specific framing factors into an Intent Elicitation Graph, uses graph-scaffolded trajectories to teach a policy when to retrieve from memory, ask the user, or stop, and optimizes the policy so that important factors get covered while interaction costs stay low. On the benchmark test set it reports the strongest weighted target coverage and the highest downstream report personalization across two fixed deep research agents, while asking roughly one third as many user questions as the strongest clarification-and-rewrite baseline. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way to personalize black-box deep research systems without internal access, improving the trade-off between research quality and user effort.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Intent Elicitation Graph (IEG), a directed acyclic graph whose nodes are user-specific elicitation targets and whose edges encode conditional dependencies: resolving one target can activate or change how another should be elicited. The IEG is used only to construct scenario-controlled training trajectories, not at inference. The second mechanism is an explicit evidence state $\Sigma_t$, a set of target slots recording each factor's grounding status, supported value, and evidence source; the policy conditions on $\Sigma_t$ to choose Retrieve, Ask, or Stop. The third is target-anchored policy optimization: trajectory-level GRPO with a reward $R(\tau, E)=R_{\mathrm{align}}-C_{\mathrm{acq}}-C_{\mathrm{con}}$, where $R_{\mathrm{align}}$ is a one-to-one matching between covered slots and elicitation targets weighted by rubrics-derived importance, and the costs penalize evidence acquisition and protocol violations. Together these let the policy balance important-factor coverage against user burden.

What would settle it

Run the same evaluation with the coverage threshold set to 0.50 and 0.60 instead of 0.55; the paper's own threshold table already shows the strongest baseline achieving higher WCov and E-WCov at those thresholds, so if 0.55 is not the correct operating point the headline ranking collapses. Run a real-user interaction study with the same two deep research agents and measure P-scores on the generated reports; if the simulated-user advantage does not appear with real users, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a query refiner trained with dependency-scaffolded trajectories and explicit evidence-state tracking can decide, for each user-specific factor, whether retrieval, clarification, or stopping is warranted, and that this decision policy transfers to unseen users and tasks. G-STEER induces framing-factor slots from the initial query, user profile, retrieved memory, and dialogue, updates their grounding status as evidence arrives, and only at Stop generates the refined query. The paper reports that this yields the highest weighted coverage of elicitation targets on the benchmark test set, with WCov 0.4253 and E-WCov 0.4639, and the highest personalization scores on both downstream agents, with 4.1 average questions versus 12.0 for the strongest clarification baseline. The paper is careful to note that it does not claim uniform superiority across all coverage thresholds, since relative performance varies with the cosine-similarity threshold used for matching.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on two untested equivalences: that a cosine-similarity threshold of 0.55 correctly determines when a refined query covers a user-specific target, and that the simulated user responses faithfully represent real user behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same refinement layer can be applied to any deep research agent without changing its retrieval or synthesis internals, making personalization feasible for proprietary systems.
  • Asking fewer, targeted clarification questions does not cost coverage: the policy prefers memory retrieval and stopping when evidence suffices, so user burden drops without sacrificing important factors.
  • Dependency structure in the elicitation targets is what drives the gains: randomizing target order in trajectory construction sharply reduces all coverage metrics, even when the same target set is used.
  • Reinforcement learning on top of graph-scaffolded SFT shifts the policy toward high-importance targets, improving weighted coverage even where uniform F1 does not improve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction is that the efficiency advantage will be more robust than the coverage advantage: because the reported threshold sweep shows the strongest baseline overtaking G-STEER on weighted coverage at neighboring similarity thresholds, a real deployment should expect the question-count reduction to persist even where the coverage lead does not.
  • The same evidence-state machinery could transfer to other pre-execution personalization tasks, such as code-generation or tool-use planning, where the system must decide between asking the user, checking memory, and proceeding with a refined prompt.
  • Because both the reference targets and the extracted framing factors are produced by the same large language model, the reported coverage may partly reflect that model's internal consistency; using a different model for factor extraction would give a less entangled measurement.
  • The user simulator's non-committal response behavior makes the training distribution somewhat optimistic; if real users are more verbose or more contradictory, the Retrieve/Ask/Stop policy would need to handle noisier evidence states than the simulator provides.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes G-STEER, a training framework for input-level personalized deep research query refinement. The method models three coupled decisions — which user-specific framing factors are relevant, whether available evidence supports them, and whether to retrieve from memory, ask the user, or stop and rewrite the query. Training uses an Intent Elicitation Graph (IEG) to construct graph-scaffolded trajectories for supervised fine-tuning, followed by target-anchored GRPO that balances weighted target coverage against acquisition and behavioral costs. At inference, the policy induces evidence slots from the query and profile, chooses Retrieve/Ask/Stop, and generates a refined research specification passed to an unchanged downstream DRA. Experiments on PDR-Bench compare G-STEER with prompting baselines, Mistral-Interact, CEP-Clarify+Rewrite, and an IntentRL-style baseline, reporting intrinsic coverage metrics, ablations, question-burden trade-offs, and downstream report personalization/quality with OpenAI Deep Research and OAgents. The headline claims are strongest weighted target coverage, highest downstream personalization, and roughly one-third as many user questions as the strongest clarification baseline.

Significance. If the headline results hold, G-STEER is a useful contribution: it addresses a practical problem (personalizing black-box deep research agents through input refinement), introduces a clean decomposition of relevance, sufficiency, and grounding-control decisions, and provides a training recipe that uses graph-structured trajectories and target-anchored rewards. The paper is unusually transparent in several ways: it releases code, reports a threshold-sensitivity table, describes the full training configuration, and explicitly acknowledges the simulator limitation in the conclusion. The downstream personalization results in Table 4 are threshold-independent and favor G-STEER on both DRAs, which is genuine supporting evidence. However, the intrinsic coverage claim that appears in the abstract is substantially weaker than the text suggests, because it relies on a single cosine threshold and on a single training seed without variance estimates, and because the evaluation pipeline shares a model (GPT-5.4) between target construction, reward anchoring, and outcome measurement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main Results (Table 2), Appendix Table 9, Abstract] The claim that G-STEER achieves the strongest overall weighted target coverage is not supported across the reported threshold sensitivity analysis. At the default threshold 0.55, G-STEER's WCov is 0.4253 versus 0.4060 for CEP-Clarify+Rewrite, but Table 9 shows CEP-Clarify+Rewrite has higher WCov at thresholds 0.45, 0.50, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.70; the same pattern holds for E-WCov and for F1 at most non-default thresholds. The appendix itself states that 'the relative performance of the methods varies across metrics and thresholds, and we therefore do not claim uniform superiority over the full range.' The abstract and Section 5.1 nevertheless state the strongest-coverage claim without this qualification. Either the abstract and main-text claims must be restricted to the 0.55 setting, or the authors should report an aggregate measure (e.g., area under the threshold curve) together with a justification for choosing 0.55 rather than an adjacent threshold.
  2. [Appendix: Training Configuration; Table 2] All trainable variants are evaluated from a single training run with seed 42, and no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported. The margin on the main coverage metric is small: WCov 0.4253 versus 0.4060 at threshold 0.55, a relative difference of about 4.7%. Given the threshold sensitivity documented in Table 9, a single seed cannot establish that G-STEER is the strongest method; the authors should provide multiple seeds with variance estimates or a paired significance test on the central comparisons.
  3. [Evaluation Details and Elicitation Target Construction] The evaluation has a potential circularity between the training signal and the coverage metric. GPT-5.4 constructs the elicitation targets and IEGs used for training, the target descriptions are used as reward anchors during GRPO, and the same model extracts user-specific framing factors from the refined queries during evaluation. Because G-STEER is explicitly optimized to align its outputs with these GPT-5.4-generated target descriptions, its high coverage scores may partly reflect an ability to imitate the target generator rather than to satisfy real user preferences. All methods share the same evaluation pipeline, which mitigates baseline unfairness, but it does not address the training-evaluation overlap for G-STEER. The authors should validate the coverage metric on a subset with an independent extraction model or human annotation, and should report whether the ranking persists under that alternative.
  4. [User Simulator; Conclusion] The reported question counts and the interactive aspects of both training and evaluation rely entirely on the Qwen3-32B user simulator, which is also used to generate GRPO rollouts. The paper acknowledges this limitation, but the central utility-burden claim ('asking roughly one third as many user questions') is only as strong as the simulator's fidelity to real user behavior. A human-subject pilot, or at least an analysis of simulator answer rates, non-committal responses, and question interpretability, would be needed before the interaction-efficiency claim can be transferred to real deployments.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'strongest overall weighted target coverage' should be made precise, e.g., 'at the 0.55 cosine threshold used throughout the main evaluation', or replaced with a statement that explicitly acknowledges the threshold sensitivity reported in the appendix.
  2. [Table 3] The ablation labeled 'Graph SFT only' achieves the highest F1 (0.4248) of all rows, while the full model has F1 0.4082. The interpretation that GRPO trades uniform matching for importance-weighted coverage is plausible and is supported by WCov/E-WCov, but the paper should note this trade-off more explicitly in the main text, since a reader may otherwise view the F1 decrease as a regression.
  3. [Table 4 and Appendix: Downstream Report Setup] The P and Q scores are reported as averages over three evaluator rounds, but no standard deviations or per-round ranges are given. Reporting variance would help assess whether differences such as 4.35 versus 4.25 for OpenAI Deep Research are meaningful.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption should define the plotted markers and any fitted curves; currently the reader must infer that each point represents one method and that the dashed or solid lines (if any) indicate trade-off frontiers.
  5. [Table 7] The 'Test-time user state' column says G-STEER uses a frozen profile and episodic memory, but it is not clear from the table how this state is initialized for unseen users; the appendix explains this, but a footnote in the table would improve readability.
  6. [Appendix: Evaluation Details] The paper says each final refined query is submitted once and every response is successfully parsed. It would be useful to report the exact number of API calls and any retry behavior, since parsing failures could silently bias the extracted factor set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: training and evaluation share a GPT-5.4-constructed target source, but no claim reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

G-STEER's derivation chain is self-contained in the required sense. The policy is trained with SFT trajectories and GRPO rewards that reference elicitation targets (Eqs. 1-3) and is evaluated against reference targets using cosine-thresholded coverage; this is standard supervised optimization toward a held-out label set, not a circular reduction. Test-set targets are constructed independently of the trained policy, the policy does not receive targets or the IEG at inference, and all baselines share the same GPT-5.4 extraction and threshold-0.55 pipeline. The paper explicitly flags the shared-evaluator limitation ('Using GPT-5.4 for both target construction and factor extraction may bias absolute scores, though all methods share the same evaluation pipeline') and threshold sensitivity ('we do not claim uniform superiority over the full range'), which are correctness/honesty concerns rather than evidence that a prediction equals an input by construction. The training reward uses internal evidence-state slots while the evaluation uses query-extracted framing factors, so Eqs. (2)-(3) are not the same function as the evaluation WCov. There is one minor self-citation (Kim et al. 2026 includes coauthor D. Lee) in a related-work list, but it is not load-bearing. No step reduces to its own input by definition or by fitted-parameter renaming.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-set reward coefficients that control the coverage-versus-question-count trade-off, on GPT-5.4-generated targets and IEGs used for both training and evaluation, on a simulated user, and on semantic-similarity matching with a chosen threshold. No new physical entities are introduced; the IEG and evidence-state slots are algorithmic constructs within the method and are covered under axioms and free parameters rather than as invented entities.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_ask = 0.04
    Hand-set cost for each Ask action in Eq. 5; directly sets how much question burden is traded off against coverage, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • lambda_ret = 0.01
    Hand-set cost for each Retrieve action in Eq. 5; ratio lambda_ask > lambda_ret encodes the assumption that user questions are more costly than memory retrieval.
  • beta_fp = 0.3
    Hand-set multiplier on false-positive penalty C_FP in Eq. 2; controls how strongly unmatched or weakly aligned covered slots are penalized.
  • lambda_rep and lambda_multi = 0.08 each
    Hand-set behavioral penalties in Eq. 6 for repeated actions and multi-target questions; chosen without reported tuning.
  • Coverage cosine threshold = 0.55
    Evaluation threshold in the Evaluation section; determines whether an extracted factor covers a reference target. The headline WCov advantage over CEP-Clarify+Rewrite only holds near this threshold and flips at 0.45, 0.50, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.70 (Table 9).
  • Optional-target inclusion ratios = {0, 0.5, 1.0}
    Trajectory construction hyperparameter controlling which subsets of optional targets appear in training, affecting the diversity and coverage behavior of the learned policy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-5.4-generated elicitation targets and IEGs from PDR-Bench rubrics faithfully represent the personalization factors that matter.
    These targets serve as both training supervision and the reference for coverage evaluation; no human validation of target completeness or correctness is reported.
  • domain assumption The Qwen3-32B user simulator approximates real user behavior closely enough to train and evaluate the policy.
    All interactive training and evaluation rollouts use the simulator; real users may give different, less cooperative, or more context-rich answers.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between MPNet embeddings is a valid equivalence relation for target coverage.
    A reference target is covered when maximum cosine similarity to an extracted factor exceeds 0.55; no external validation of this semantic equivalence is provided.
  • domain assumption PDR-Bench rubric importance weights w_i are valid and transferable.
    Weights are inherited from the benchmark evaluator and used both as reward anchors and in the WCov / E-WCov metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Personalized Deep Research Query Refinement with Graph-Scaffolded Evidence Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SORCZ6JZ

@misc{pith2026260805876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Personalized Deep Research Query Refinement with Graph-Scaffolded Evidence Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SORCZ6JZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05876}
}
read the original abstract

User requests serve as research specifications for deep research agents, shaping what evidence to seek and how to synthesize it. In personalized deep research, these specifications must additionally reflect user goals, constraints, preferences, and evaluation criteria. User context can be incorporated either within the deep research pipeline or into the research specification provided as its input. We focus on the latter, refining the user request into a personalized research specification before passing it to an unchanged deep research agent. This requires resolving three coupled decisions: which framing factors are relevant, whether the available user context sufficiently supports them, and whether to retrieve user memory, ask the user, or stop and refine the query. For training, G-STEER organizes framing factors as elicitation targets in an Intent Elicitation Graph that captures their dependencies. It learns a clarification policy from graph-scaffolded trajectories spanning diverse factor dependencies and evidence conditions. The policy produces a refined query while balancing target coverage against the costs of evidence acquisition. Experiments show that G-STEER achieves the strongest overall weighted target coverage and the highest downstream report personalization across both evaluated DRAs, while asking roughly one third as many user questions as a strong clarification baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three coupled decisions in personalized DR query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of G-STEER. GRPO normalizes trajectory rewards within each group and applies the resulting advantage to all policy transitions in the corresponding rollout. The update increases the likeli￾hood of trajectories that cover important targets with fewer unnecessary actions and violations. Target-Anchored Alignment. Let V cov T denote the cov￾ered slots in the final evidence state, and let N be the number of eli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Utility–burden tradeoff among clarification meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: OAgents searches before and after refinement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026 , url=

    Mingxuan Du and Benfeng Xu and Chiwei Zhu and Licheng Zhang and Xiaorui Wang and Zhendong Mao , booktitle=. 2026 , url=

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    2026 , url=

    Jiayu Wang and Yifei Ming and Riya Dulepet and Qinglin Chen and Austin Xu and Zixuan Ke and Frederic Sala and Aws Albarghouthi and Caiming Xiong and Shafiq Joty , booktitle=. 2026 , url=

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    DR$^{3}$-Eval: Towards Realistic and Reproducible Deep Research Evaluation

    Qianqian Xie and Qingheng Xiong and He Zhu and Tiantian Xia and Xueming Han and Fanyu Meng and Jiakai Wang and Zhiqi Bai and Chengkang Jiang and Zhaohui Wang and Yubin Guo and Yuqing Wen and Jiayang Mao and Zijie Zhang and Shihao Li and Yanghai Wang and Yuxiang Ren and Junlan Feng and Jiaheng Liu , year=. 2604.14683 , archivePrefix=

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    2026 , eprint=

    IntentRL: Training Proactive User-intent Agents for Open-ended Deep Research via Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Towards Personalized Deep Research: Benchmarks and Evaluations , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    work page

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the 49th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Li, Xiaopeng and Zhang, Wenlin and Zhang, Yingyi and Jia, Pengyue and Wang, Yejing and Wang, Yichao and Liu, Yong and Guo, Huifeng and Zhao, Xiangyu , title =. Proceedings of the 49th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2026 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3805712.3808609 , abstract =

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Personalized Search-based Query Rewrite System for Conversational AI

    Cho, Eunah and Jiang, Ziyan and Hao, Jie and Chen, Zheng and Gupta, Saurabh and Fan, Xing and Guo, Chenlei. Personalized Search-based Query Rewrite System for Conversational AI. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI. 2021. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.nlp4convai-1.17

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.nlp4convai-1.17 2021

  8. [8]

    Context-Aware Query Rewriting for Improving Users' Search Experience on E -commerce Websites

    Zuo, Simiao and Yin, Qingyu and Jiang, Haoming and Xi, Shaohui and Yin, Bing and Zhang, Chao and Zhao, Tuo. Context-Aware Query Rewriting for Improving Users' Search Experience on E -commerce Websites. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 5: Industry Track). 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-industry.59

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-industry.59 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

    BESPOKE: Benchmark for Search-Augmented Large Language Model Personalization via Diagnostic Feedback , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

  2. [10]

    2024 , publisher =

    Salemi, Alireza and Mysore, Sheshera and Bendersky, Michael and Zamani, Hamed , booktitle =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  3. [11]

    Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Optimization Methods for Personalizing Large Language Models through Retrieval Augmentation , author =. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  4. [12]

    2024 , doi =

    Zhong, Wanjun and Guo, Lianghong and Gao, Qiqi and Ye, He and Wang, Yanlin , booktitle =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  5. [13]

    and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E

    Packer, Charles and Wooders, Sarah and Lin, Kevin and Fang, Vivian and Patil, Shishir G. and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E. , year =. 2310.08560 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    2023 , url =

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  7. [15]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  8. [16]

    2024 , publisher =

    Song, Yifan and Xiong, Weimin and Zhao, Xiutian and Zhu, Dawei and Wu, Wenhao and Wang, Ke and Li, Cheng and Peng, Wei and Li, Sujian , booktitle =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  9. [17]

    Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , year =. 2402.03300 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 , pages =

    Generating Multi-turn Clarification for Web Information Seeking , author =. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 , pages =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  11. [19]

    2025 , publisher =

    Cao, Zhiyu and Li, Peifeng and Zhu, Qiaoming , booktitle =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  12. [20]

    Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instruction

    Wang, Wenxuan and Juluan, Shi and Ling, Zixuan and Chan, Yuk-Kit and Wang, Chaozheng and Lee, Cheryl and Yuan, Youliang and Huang, Jen-tse and Jiao, Wenxiang and Lyu, Michael R. Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instruction. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Em...

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , year =

    Tell Me More! Towards Implicit User Intention Understanding of Language Model Driven Agents , author =. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , year =

  14. [22]

    Ask-before-Plan: Proactive Language Agents for Real-World Planning

    Zhang, Xuan and Deng, Yang and Ren, Zifeng and Ng, See-Kiong and Chua, Tat-Seng. Ask-before-Plan: Proactive Language Agents for Real-World Planning. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.636

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Dialogue State Tracking with a Language Model using Schema-Driven Prompting , author =. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    2021

  16. [24]

    , booktitle =

    Kumar, Vaibhav and Black, Alan W. , booktitle =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  17. [25]

    2009.11352 , archivePrefix =

    Aliannejadi, Mohammad and Kiseleva, Julia and Chuklin, Aleksandr and Dalton, Jeff and Burtsev, Mikhail , year =. 2009.11352 , archivePrefix =

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval , year =

    Asking Clarifying Questions Based on Negative Feedback in Conversational Search , author =. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval , year =. doi:10.1145/3471158.3472232 , url =

    2021

  19. [27]

    Machine Intelligence Research , year =

    A Survey on Recent Advances and Challenges in Reinforcement Learning Methods for Task-Oriented Dialogue Policy Learning , author =. Machine Intelligence Research , year =

  20. [28]

    2025 , eprint=

    Qwen3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  21. [29]

    and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan and Li, Yuanzhi and Wang, Shean and Wang, Lu and Chen, Weizhu , booktitle=

    Hu, Edward J. and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan and Li, Yuanzhi and Wang, Shean and Wang, Lu and Chen, Weizhu , booktitle=. 2022 , url=

    2022

  22. [30]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understanding , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=. 2020 , url=

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sentence-

    Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna , booktitle=. Sentence-. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08281 , year=

    The Faiss Library , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08281 , year=

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08734 , year=

    Billion-scale Similarity Search with GPUs , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08734 , year=

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    GPT-5.4 Model , author=

  27. [35]

    o4-mini-deep-research Model , author=

  28. [36]

    Deep Research Preview , author=

  29. [37]

    Google Search Engine Results API , author=

  30. [38]

    Reader API , author=

  31. [39]

    2025 , eprint=

    OAgents: An Empirical Study of Building Effective Agents , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  32. [40]

    Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Asking Clarifying Questions in Open-Domain Information-Seeking Conversations , author =. Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2019 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3331184.3331265 , url =

    2019

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , pages =

    Generating Clarifying Questions for Information Retrieval , author =. Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , pages =. 2020 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3366423.3380126 , url =

    2020

  34. [42]

    Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages =

    Template-guided Clarifying Question Generation for Web Search Clarification , author =. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3459637.3482199 , url =

    2021

  35. [43]

    Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Conversational Recommender System , author =. Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2018 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3209978.3210002 , url =

    2018

  36. [44]

    Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , pages =

    User Memory Reasoning for Conversational Recommendation , author =. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , pages =. 2020 , month = dec, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.463 , url =

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages =

    MemoCRS: Memory-enhanced Sequential Conversational Recommender Systems with Large Language Models , author =. Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3627673.3679599 , url =

    2024

  38. [46]

    2023 , eprint =

    FireAct: Toward Language Agent Fine-tuning , author =. 2023 , eprint =

    2023

  39. [47]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages =

    AgentTuning: Enabling Generalized Agent Abilities for LLMs , author =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  40. [48]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Watch Every Step! LLM Agent Learning via Iterative Step-Level Process Refinement , author =. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  41. [49]

    2025 , eprint =

    How to Train Your LLM Web Agent: A Statistical Diagnosis , author =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.