Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MIR: Methodology Inspiration Retrieval for Scientific Research Problems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that fine-tuning dense retrievers on a citation-intent-annotated graph (the Methodology Adjacency Graph) substantially improves retrieval of methodologically inspirational papers, with LLM re-ranking adding further gains.

desk verdict Useful new task definition and dataset, but the headline inspiration gains are measured against a noisy, self-referential citation-intent gold standard. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00249 v1 pith:MM4BKRY7 submitted 2025-05-30 cs.AI cs.CL

Aniketh Garikaparthi , Manasi Patwardhan , Aditya Sanjiv Kanade , Aman Hassan , Lovekesh Vig , Arman Cohan This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords methodologyinspirationretrievalcitationintentdensetripletlossLLMre-rankingautomatedscientificdiscoveryresearchproposalliterature-based
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

Scientific discovery systems that ground idea generation in literature retrieve papers by semantic similarity, which surfaces keyword overlaps rather than papers whose methods could actually solve a stated problem. This paper defines Methodology Inspiration Retrieval (MIR) as the task of ranking papers by their potential to inspire a methodology for a given research proposal, using only the proposal's problem and motivation as the query. It builds a Methodology Adjacency Graph from citation-intent-annotated citations, and fine-tunes dense retrievers with a joint triplet loss so that proposals, their methodological citation contexts, and the cited papers are pulled close together while non-methodological neighbors are pushed away. On the resulting MIR-MultiCite test set this lifts Recall@3 by 5.4 and mean Average Precision by 7.8 over strong baselines, and an LLM-based re-ranker (MIR-Agent) adds further gains of 4.5 in Recall@3 and 4.8 in mAP. The paper further shows that ideas generated from MIR-grounded retrieval score higher on LLM-as-judge novelty, feasibility, and alignment with ground-truth methodology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Methodology Adjacency Graph (MAG): a directed graph whose nodes are research proposals, whose outgoing edges point to cited papers, and whose edges are annotated with citation intents (methodology: 'uses'/'extends'; non-methodology: everything else) and the citation contexts that describe how the cited paper was used. The MAG feeds a joint triplet loss with three triplets per sample—anchor proposal vs. positive cited paper, anchor citation context vs. positive proposal, and anchor citation context vs. positive cited paper—so that the retriever learns the relationship between a problem, the textual description of how a cited paper contributes, and the paper itself. Negative sampling is MAG-guided: hard negatives are papers in the same scientific domain (computed from SciBERT representations of extracted named entities) that are not methodologically relevant, pushing the retriever to separate semantic neighbors from methodological allies. A second mechanism is the MIR-Agent LLM re-ranker, which decomposes a proposal into sub-problems and a generic action plan, evaluates each retrieved paper's applicability to those sub-problems, and issues a binary relevance judgment, optionally with few-shot exemplars drawn from the MAG and with full-paper context.

What would settle it

Re-annotate the MIR-MultiCite test proposals with an independent operational definition of 'methodological inspiration'—for example, ask expert researchers to mark, for each proposal, which papers in the corpus could genuinely inspire a solution, without seeing the original citation intents—then re-run the fine-tuned retrievers and baselines on that relabeled ground truth. If the MAG-finetuned retriever does not maintain its lead over the strong semantic baseline on the relabeled set, or if the disagreement between the two label sets is large, the central claim that citation-intent-derived graphs teach retrievers to identify inspirational literature is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the methodological lineage encoded in citation graphs, distilled into a dense retriever by a joint triplet loss, gives the retriever an implicit 'domain intuition' for inspirational literature that purely semantic similarity lacks. The authors operationalize methodological inspiration through the MultiCite citation intents 'uses' and 'extends', treat proposals as graph nodes whose outgoing edges point to methodologically relevant cited papers, and train with three interlocking triplets: proposal-to-cited-paper, citation-context-to-proposal, and citation-context-to-cited-paper, using hard negatives selected by domain similarity. They report that fine-tuning SPECTER2 and Stella models this way yields consistent improvements of up to +5.4 Recall@3 and +7.8 mAP over strong zero-shot baselines, and that a few-shot LLM agent that decomposes the proposal into sub-problems before judging methodological relevance adds further improvements of up to +5.7 Recall@3 and +5.8 mAP when it reads full papers. They also report that grounding idea generation in MIR retrieval raises LLM-judged novelty, significance, feasibility, clarity, and effectiveness scores over naive retrieval, and improves alignment with the ground-truth methodology from 0.142 to 0.170.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a cited paper counts as a methodological inspiration exactly when its citation intent is 'uses' or 'extends'; if real-world inspiration is not captured by those two labels, the benchmark measures citation-intent prediction rather than inspiration, and the ground truth carries the original annotations' noise (17 incorrect or missing and 15 misclassified labels in a 39-paper error-analysis sample).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Retrievers fine-tuned on citation-intent graphs can replace generic semantic search in the grounding stage of automated idea generation, since the paper shows MIR-grounded generations score higher on LLM-as-judge novelty, significance, feasibility, clarity, and effectiveness than naive-retrieval-grounded generations.
  • MIR enables a realistic retrieval setting for hypothesis-generation systems: the query is only the research problem and motivation, with no assumption that citation neighbors or ground-truth inspirations of a seed paper are already known, so novel methodology generation is not constrained to resemble a seed paper's own approach.
  • LLM re-ranking of a small top-k list (k around 10 to 20) is a practical complement to embedding retrieval: the paper's cost analysis puts Gemini re-ranking at roughly a cent to a few cents per proposal, and the best configurations use few-shot exemplars sampled from the citation graph plus full-paper context.
  • The joint triplet-loss training recipe with weakly labeled, domain-distributed augmented data scales: training on weakly labeled arXiv data alone already lifts Recall@3 and mAP over the base model, indicating the recipe is robust to label noise and transferable to other domains with available citation corpora.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two intents the paper merges as 'methodology'—'uses' and 'extends'—plausibly mark distinct relationships: direct reuse versus conceptual extension. Splitting them into separate positives would test whether the MAG fine-tuning learns one or two notions of inspiration, and could yield a more informative ranking for downstream discovery.
  • The MIR-Agent's gains come from decomposing a proposal into sub-problems before judging relevance; this is a domain-specific instantiation of chain-of-thought retrieval. A testable extension is whether the same decomposition step helps on other reasoning-intensive retrieval benchmarks or whether the sub-problem decomposition only helps because 'methodological relevance' is naturally sub-problem-st
  • Because the paper's error analysis finds that ground-truth annotation errors are a major error source (17 of 39 papers in the analyzed sample), the true ceiling of the task may be higher than reported, and a cleaner label set—for instance, LLM-driven synthetic citation-intent labeling that the authors suggest—could change the relative ranking of the embedding retriever and the LLM re-ranker.
  • The 0.170 vs 0.142 IA-Score alignment is modest in absolute terms (about 1 in 6 generated ideas matching ground-truth methodology), so the downstream benefit of MIR is real but limited; a more direct test would measure whether MIR-grounded ideas are judged by human experts as more novel and implementable, not just more aligned with a known methodology.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Methodology Inspiration Retrieval (MIR), a task in which a system ranks papers from a literature corpus that could inspire a solution methodology for a given research proposal containing only a problem and motivation. The authors construct MIR-MultiCite by adapting the MultiCite citation-intent dataset: papers cited with 'Uses' or 'Extends' intents are treated as methodological inspirations, and this labeling is used both to build a Methodology Adjacency Graph (MAG) for fine-tuning dense retrievers and to create test ground truth. They propose a joint triplet-loss fine-tuning strategy over MAG-derived triplets, an arXiv-based weak-label augmentation scheme, and LLM-based re-ranking strategies, including a MIR-Agent that decomposes proposals before judging relevance. On their test set they report substantial improvements over strong baselines (e.g., +5.4 Recall@3 and +7.8 mAP on the extended corpus), further gains from LLM re-ranking, and downstream benefits in LLM-as-a-judge idea-generation evaluations. The paper includes ablations, a two-corpus evaluation design, qualitative analyses, and an explicit error analysis and limitations section.

Significance. If the reported effects are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution: it defines a realistic retrieval task that goes beyond surface semantic similarity, releases a dataset, and demonstrates that citation-intent-derived graph structure can be distilled into dense retrievers through a principled triplet formulation. The ablation study in Table 5 and the training-data scaling results in Table 7 provide internally consistent evidence for the method's components, and the authors are unusually transparent about timeline contamination, label noise, and subjectivity in their ground truth. The main limitation is construct validity: the training signal and the evaluation labels come from the same MultiCite citation-intent construct, and the paper's own error analysis shows that this construct is noisy. The downstream idea-generation evaluation is a step toward external validation, but it is still LLM-judged. With a reframed central claim or an independent annotation check, the paper's core technical contribution would be solid; as written, the strength of the conclusion exceeds what the evaluation can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §5.1.2, Limitations, Appendix D] The task's operationalization of 'methodological inspiration' is the MultiCite 'Uses'/'Extends' citation intent, and the same intent labels are used to build the MAG training triplets and the test gold standard. Section 4.1 states: 'We view papers cited with citation intents (Uses or Extends) as potential inspirations.' Consequently, the reported +5.4/+7.8 gains may partly reflect learning to predict the citation-intent annotation pattern rather than retrieving papers that an independent expert would consider inspirational. This concern is reinforced by the paper's own evidence: Appendix D reports 17 incorrect or missing annotations and 15 misclassifications among 15 analyzed proposals, and the Limitations section concedes that MultiCite annotations 'occasionally missed inspirational citations, while simultaneously including some trivial references (e.g., mere use of GPT-4).' I do not regard this as fatal, because the paper explicitly frames the dataset around citation intents, but the abstract and conclusion overstate the claim by speaking of 'implicit domain-intuition for prioritizing inspirational literature.' Please either reframe the central claim as retrieving methodologically cited papers, or add a human or independently annotated evaluation on a sample that validates the learned ranking against genuine methodological inspiration.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2, §7] The headline numbers in the abstract and conclusion (+5.4 Recall@3, +7.8 mAP) are the Extended Corpus results from Table 2; on the Restricted Corpus the corresponding gains over the strongest baseline are only +2.76 Recall@3 and +1.16 mAP. Meanwhile, Section 4.2 admits that the Restricted Corpus 'introduces potential timeline contamination risks, as there is no guarantee that the corpus papers predate the test proposal.' The evaluation also rests on only 139 test proposals and 193 relevant papers, yet no confidence intervals, bootstrap estimates, or per-proposal variance statistics are reported anywhere. Please state in the abstract which corpus setting the headline numbers refer to, and report significance or variance estimates so the reader can assess the stability of the claimed gains.
  3. [§5.2.2, Table 6, §7] The full-paper re-ranking experiments, which support the Conclusion's claim of '+5.7 in Recall@3 and +5.8 in mAP,' are evaluated on only 75 of the 139 test proposals, selected by full-text availability. Section 5.2.2 says: 'For this analysis, we identify a sub-set of the test-set proposals for which the full text of top-k (k=75) retrieved papers is available.' No analysis is provided of how these 75 proposals differ from the remaining 64, so selection bias cannot be ruled out. Please report the full-paper re-ranking results on the full test set, or justify that the subset is representative and treat the subset explicitly when citing these numbers.
  4. [§6.4, §B.5.2] The downstream validation in RQ3 is weaker than the retrieval evaluation and does not fully resolve the construct-validity concern. The IA-Score in Section B.5.2 measures alignment of generated methodologies with 'the ground truth methodology (extracted from the original seed paper abstract),' but Section 3 defines the MIR query as containing no methodology; measuring alignment against the seed paper's own methodology evaluates a related but different objective. The IdeaArena and IA-Score judgments are both produced by LLMs with no human validation. Please present these results as exploratory evidence and, if possible, add a small human study on a sample of proposals to validate the downstream benefit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. §5.2/§7] The abstract reports LLM re-ranking improvements of +4.5 in Recall@3 and +4.8 in mAP, while the Conclusion reports +5.7 and +5.8 for the full-paper few-shot MIR-Agent setting; please make the setting for each set of numbers explicit.
  2. [§6.4] There is a typo in RQ1: 'SPERCTER2' should be 'SPECTER2'.
  3. [§6.1] 'respecitvely' should be 'respectively'; footnote 7's 'Methodologysection' should be 'Methodology section'; Appendix B.4 contains 'o8ther' instead of 'other'.
  4. [§5.2/B.4] The paper says listwise and pairwise re-ranking 'showed no improvement' but does not report their numerical results; a sentence summarizing their performance would make the decision to exclude them more verifiable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The claimed 'inspirational literature' signal and the evaluation both reduce by construction to MultiCite's Uses/Extends citation-intent labels; the retrieval gains are real on that benchmark but do not independently confirm methodological inspiration.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (MIR-MultiCite Dataset); Section 5.1.2 Eq. (2); Section 6.2; Section 6.4 (RQ3)]
    "We view papers cited with citation intents (Uses or Extends) as potential inspirations. We intentionally maintain this broad definition to capture instances when a cited work offers conceptual inspiration beyond immediately applicable solutions."

    The target concept, 'methodological inspiration', is operationalized only through MultiCite's Uses/Extends labels. The MAG training positives in Eq. (2) are p+ ~ l_k in L_P with a context c_k whose intent is in {MI} = {'uses','extends'}, and the test ground truth in Section 6.2 is the same MultiCite-derived construct. Section 6.4 then states: 'By design, our problem setting aims to prioritize retrieval of papers cited by researchers with methodological intent.

full rationale

The derivation chain is internally valid as a benchmark: MAG-guided fine-tuning is evaluated on held-out proposals with strong external baselines, and the improvements are not fabricated. The central circularity-adjacent issue is construct-level: 'methodological inspiration' is defined by the same MultiCite Uses/Extends labels used to create the MAG training positives and the test relevance judgments. The paper's own limitations and error analysis confirm that this label proxy is noisy and sometimes includes trivial references, so the +5.4/+7.8 gains demonstrate improved prediction of the citation-intent proxy rather than an independently validated ability to find inspirational literature. The self-citations to SPECTER and MultiCite are not load-bearing: SPECTER serves as a baseline and MultiCite is an external dataset, both appropriate. The LLM-as-a-judge evaluation is methodologically weak but not circular in the derivation sense. Overall, the central claim retains independent benchmark content, but the paper does not validate the core construct outside its own definition, so a moderate circularity score is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the citation-intent proxy for inspiration and on LLM-based extraction and mapping steps. The Methodology Adjacency Graph is a data structure built from existing citation graphs, not a new physical or theoretical entity. Several free parameters (margin, alpha, epochs, augmentation fraction) are not reported with values, which limits reproducibility.

free parameters (5)
  • triplet loss margin m = not reported
    Hyperparameter in Eq. 1 controlling the triplet separation margin; chosen by hand, value not stated in the paper.
  • negative sampling ratio alpha = not reported
    Determines the mix of hard and soft negatives in MAG-guided sampling (Section 5.1.2); value not stated.
  • number of training epochs E = not reported
    Fine-tuning epochs are not reported in Section 6.1, despite being a critical training choice.
  • re-ranking depth k = 10 for main; 75 for full-paper subset
    Selected via the elbow method on the dev split for main reranking; full-paper experiments use k=75 on a subset of test proposals.
  • fraction of arXiv augmented samples used = not reported
    Section 4.3 states only a fraction of 51,021 augmented proposals is used, but the exact fraction is not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MultiCite citation intent labels 'uses' and 'extends' are a valid operationalization of methodological inspiration
    Section 4.1: the authors treat these intents as the ground truth for methodological relevance in both training and evaluation.
  • domain assumption Research proposals extracted by Gemini from abstracts are methodology-free and faithfully represent the problem and motivation
    Section 4.1: manual check on 30 proposals found 98.2% accuracy, but the entire task formalization depends on this extraction being reliable.
  • domain assumption Semantic Scholar and LLM-based reference matching correctly map citation contexts to cited papers
    Section 4.1: manual verification on 20% of extractions found them correct; mapping errors would inject noise into the MAG and the ground truth.
  • domain assumption Weak citation-intent labels from the multicite-multilabel-scibert classifier on arXiv papers are accurate enough for data augmentation
    Section 4.3: augmentation relies on a SciBERT classifier trained on MultiCite; noise in these labels is accepted for training.
  • standard math Standard deep learning and triplet-loss optimization assumptions
    Eq. 1 assumes L2 distance and a margin-based triplet loss; no formal guarantees beyond standard contrastive learning are invoked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MIR: Methodology Inspiration Retrieval for Scientific Research Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MM4BKRY7

@misc{pith2026250600249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MIR: Methodology Inspiration Retrieval for Scientific Research Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MM4BKRY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00249}
}
read the original abstract

There has been a surge of interest in harnessing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. While existing approaches rely on grounding the discovery process within the relevant literature, effectiveness varies significantly with the quality and nature of the retrieved literature. We address the challenge of retrieving prior work whose concepts can inspire solutions for a given research problem, a task we define as Methodology Inspiration Retrieval (MIR). We construct a novel dataset tailored for training and evaluating retrievers on MIR, and establish baselines. To address MIR, we build the Methodology Adjacency Graph (MAG); capturing methodological lineage through citation relationships. We leverage MAG to embed an "intuitive prior" into dense retrievers for identifying patterns of methodological inspiration beyond superficial semantic similarity. This achieves significant gains of +5.4 in Recall@3 and +7.8 in Mean Average Precision (mAP) over strong baselines. Further, we adapt LLM-based re-ranking strategies to MIR, yielding additional improvements of +4.5 in Recall@3 and +4.8 in mAP. Through extensive ablation studies and qualitative analyses, we exhibit the promise of MIR in enhancing automated scientific discovery and outline avenues for advancing inspiration-driven retrieval.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generic retrieval setting leads to retrieval of non-relevant papers with mere semantic overlap (Top). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dataset Construction: Adapting original MultiCite data for MIR and extending it with arXiv augmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Keyword Frequency: Original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Read the abstract carefully

    work page

  2. [2]

    - Methodology (M): Approaches, techniques, or procedures used

    Analyze each sentence, considering: - Research Problem (RP): Main issues or challenges being addressed. - Methodology (M): Approaches, techniques, or procedures used. - Motivation (MO): Reasons for defining or solving the research problem

    work page

  3. [3]

    InProceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), page 279–299

    Scimon: Scientific inspiration machines opti- mized for novelty. InProceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), page 279–299. Association for Computational Linguistics. Orion Weller, Benjamin Chang, Sean MacAvaney, Kyle Lo, Arman Cohan, Benjamin Van Durme, Dawn Lawrie, and Luca Soldaini...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    After analyzing all sentences, summarize the three key aspects

    work page

  5. [5]

    reasoning

    Format your response as a JSON object with the following fields: - "reasoning": Your reasoning about the complete abstract, on how did you analyze and find the research problem, motivation and abstract. - "research_problem": A fluent summary of the main research problem(s) - "methodology": A coherent summary of the methods and approaches, and results from...

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [7]

    Note that there can be two aspects as part of the sentence as well

    For each sentence, provide your thought process on whether it contains RP, M, or MO, and explain why. Note that there can be two aspects as part of the sentence as well

    work page

  7. [10]

    - Identify and list out core problems Research Proposal aims to solve

    Analyze the Research Proposal: - Carefully read each sentence of the Research Proposal. - Identify and list out core problems Research Proposal aims to solve. - Very briefly list

    work page

  8. [11]

    The main objective and motivation

    work page

Show all 23 references
  1. [12]

    The sub-problems of the core problem

  2. [13]

    speaker commitment

    A generic plan of action to solve the core problem Here is the Research Proposal: {query} MIR-Agent: Paper Analysis Prompt You are an expert researcher in the field of NLP with rich domain knowledge. Your task is to evaluate the methodological relevance of a {input_text_name} ...

    2018

  3. [14]

    Relevance Score: 1

    Citation: We draw the initial sample of CCG tag sequences corresponding to the observation sequence, using probabilities based on grammar informed initialization (Baldridge, 2008). Relevance Score: 1

    2008

  4. [15]

    problem_proximity_score

    Citation: In this experiment, we use the training and test sets used by Baldridge (2008) from CCGbank. Relevance Score: 1 Non-Methodology Citation: Citation: Previous work has used Bayesian HMMs to learn taggers for both POS tagging and supertagging (Baldridge, 2008) separatel...

    2008

  5. [16]

    Explore alternative data sources (e.g., unpaired articles and summaries, other text-rich datasets)

  6. [17]

    Investigate and develop novel techniques for abstractive summarization without parallel data (e.g., unsupervised or semi-supervised learning, transfer learning)

  7. [18]

    Design and implement a system based on the chosen techniques

  8. [19]

    Evaluate the system’s performance using appropriate metrics and compare it to existing methods. Paper Analysis: ## Methodological Relevance Evaluation: This Research Paper’s Abstract presents a method for abstractive summarization that focuses on sentence selection and rewriti...

  9. [20]

    Difficulties in evaluating the quality of generated knowledge in low-resource settings

    **Leverage High-Resource KBs:** Utilize existing information in high-resource language KBs (e.g., English Wikipedia) as a foundation. 2. **Develop Cross-lingual Techniques:** Explore and implement methods for transferring knowledge and relation extraction models across languag...

    2015

  10. [21]

    Incorrect or Missing Annotations(17 samples): Samples where methodologically relevant papers are either mislabeled, not labeled with the correct intent, or not labeled in the dataset at all

  11. [22]

    Subjectivity(7 samples): Samples that are methodologically relevant but not cited by the authors, as they adopted a different approach to solving the problem

  12. [23]

    How to incorporate visual information into language learning/understanding

    Misclassification(15 samples): Samples where our pipeline incorrectly classifies papers, either by labeling non-relevant papers as relevant or vice versa. D.1 Incorrect or Missing Annotations Language learning using Speech to Image retrieval Proposal:The main research problem ...

  13. [2017]

    InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval

    Fairscholar: Balancing relevance and diversity for scientific paper recommendation. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Jinheon Baek, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Silviu Cucerzan, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2025. ResearchAgent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific lit...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [2021]

    InAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    Packed levitated marker for entity and relation extraction. InAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, and Bin Cui. 2024. Retrieval- augmented gen...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [2024]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren

    Bright: A realistic and challenging bench- mark for reasoning-intensive retrieval.Preprint, arXiv:2407.12883. Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large langua...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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