Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AutoPatent: A Multi-Agent Framework for Automatic Patent Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AutoPatent shows that a 7B model can beat GPT-4o at writing complete patents when generation is split into planner, writer, and examiner agents.

desk verdict A genuinely new benchmark and a solid multi-agent pipeline for long-document patent generation, but the synthetic drafts are derived from the target patents themselves, which undermines the real-world claim and inflates the headline results. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09796 v1 pith:TIJL4OZ4 submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CL cs.AI

Qiyao Wang , Shiwen Ni , Huaren Liu , Shule Lu , Guhong Chen , Xi Feng , Chi Wei , Qiang Qu
show 3 more authors
Hamid Alinejad-Rokny Yuan Lin Min Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords patentgenerationmulti-agentLLMframeworkDraft2PatentD2PbenchmarkPGTreeRRAGlongdocument
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a new task, Draft2Patent, in which a model must expand an inventor's technical draft into a complete patent, and builds a 1,933-pair benchmark (D2P) from accepted public patent records. It then introduces AutoPatent, a multi-agent framework that decomposes generation into a planning agent, six writer agents, and an examiner agent. The central claim is that this structure, not raw model scale, matters: Qwen2.5-7B running AutoPatent outperforms zero-shot GPT-4o, Qwen2.5-72B, and LLAMA3.1-70B on n-gram metrics, repetition rate, and blind human expert review. If true, long, highly constrained legal-technical documents become tractable for small open models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanisms are PGTree (Patent Writing Guideline Tree) and RRAG (Reference-Review-Augmented Generation). PGTree is a two-layer outline — sections containing subsections — that a planning agent generates from the draft so the 14K+ token description can be written subsection by subsection rather than in one pass. RRAG is the write loop: the description writer retrieves relevant chunks from the reference set (draft plus already-written components), drafts a subsection, the examiner agent reviews it against accuracy, logic, comprehensiveness, clarity, coherence, and consistency, and the writer revises until the examiner passes it. The six writer agents split the remaining short components by style, and the examiner agent also serves as draft-quality gatekeeper during benchmark construction.

What would settle it

Run AutoPatent and zero-shot GPT-4o on a held-out set of genuine pre-filing inventor drafts whose corresponding patents later granted, and have patent-law experts blind-judge which output better matches the disclosure; if Qwen2.5-7B+AutoPatent does not win the majority of expert preferences, the central claim that the framework transfers to real inventor drafting collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a complete patent — title, abstract, background, summary, claims, and a detailed description averaging over 14K tokens of the roughly 17K total — can be generated by composing small models into specialized roles. AutoPatent's planner builds a two-level PGTree outline of the description; its writers fill each subsection by retrieving from the draft plus the already-generated components; its examiner agent rejects and requests rewrites until each subsection passes. In the D2P test set, the configuration built on Qwen2.5-7B scored above GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Qwen2.5-72B, and LLAMA3.1-70B on BLEU, ROUGE-1/2/L, and IRR, and three human experts familiar with patent law preferred the AutoPatent output in blind pairwise comparisons. The authors also report that removing PGTree collapses generation to under 2K tokens and that removing RRAG lowers all objective scores.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark drafts are not authentic inventor disclosures: they are generated by asking GPT-4o-mini five questions about the already-granted patent and then filtering the answers with GPT-4o, so the task is to reconstruct a known patent from an LLM's summary of that same patent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 7B open-weight model composed with a planning, retrieval, and review pipeline can generate structured long documents rated above frontier zero-shot outputs, suggesting model scale is not the binding constraint.
  • The D2P benchmark gives the community a reproducible stress test for tasks requiring 10K+ tokens of highly constrained, domain-specific writing.
  • If the pipeline is applied beyond patents, it offers a template: decompose a long document into an outline, retrieve from a trusted reference set, and loop an examiner-style reviewer until quality checks pass.
  • Automatic patent drafting could shorten one of the most labor-intensive steps in intellectual-property practice; however, the authors state the outputs still need human legal review before submission.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because every draft in D2P was produced by asking an LLM to summarize the final patent, the benchmark may reward reconstructing the reference text; a real inventor's draft would likely be noisier, so deployment gains could be smaller.
  • The same agent decomposition — outline planning, retrieval from a fixed reference set, and examiner-style review — is a general recipe for other long regulated documents, such as clinical study protocols or regulatory submissions.
  • A decisive test is to run AutoPatent on genuine pre-filing inventor drafts; if the 7B pipeline no longer beats frontier zero-shot models, the paper's headline claim would be confined to its synthetic benchmark.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Draft2Patent, a new task in which a system converts an inventor's technical draft into a complete patent, and presents the D2P benchmark with 1,933 draft-patent pairs built from HUPD. The authors propose AutoPatent, a multi-agent framework with a planner agent that builds a Patent Writing Guideline Tree (PGTree), five short-component writer agents, a description writer, and an examiner agent that iteratively reviews subsections; a retrieval module (RRAG) conditions description writing on earlier components and the draft. On the D2P test set, AutoPatent with Qwen2.5-7B achieves the highest BLEU/ROUGE/IRR scores among the compared systems and, in a 50-patent pairwise human evaluation, is judged better than zero-shot or SFT baselines from GPT-4o, Qwen2.5-72B, and LLAMA3.1-70B.

Significance. The paper makes a coherent engineering contribution: the modular writer/planner/examiner decomposition, PGTree, and RRAG are natural and promising designs for long structured generation, and the ablation studies show large improvements from these components. The IRR metric is a useful and appropriate addition that correctly exposes the repetition failure of SFT. The D2P benchmark is the first of its kind at this scale and could be valuable if used with appropriate caveats. However, the headline claims about patent quality and about superiority over larger LLMs rest on two validity pillars that are currently weak: benchmark construction, where drafts are generated from the reference patents themselves, and evaluation, where n-gram metrics are length-confounded and the human study is small and under-reported. The central contribution is therefore plausible but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2 constructs each draft by asking GPT-4o-mini to answer five questions about the granted patent being generated, and then uses GPT-4o to filter drafts for informativeness. The D2P task therefore asks models to reconstruct a patent from a query-conditioned summary of that same patent, rather than to draft a patent from an independent inventor's disclosure. Because the AutoPatent pipeline is trained on the target patents and retrieves draft and short-component text verbatim in RRAG, the high BLEU/ROUGE scores in Table 2 may reflect how faithfully the system expands an LLM summary of the reference back into the reference, not how well it drafts from real inventor notes. This is an external-validity threat to the abstract's central claim, and I would like to see (i) quantitative overlap statistics between drafts and reference patents (e.g., Jaccard or BLEU), (ii) an additional evaluation on drafts produced without conditioning on the target patent text, and (iii) a revised abstract and conclusion that limit the claim to the D2P benchmark unless such evidence is provided.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 5.1] Table 2 shows that zero-shot baselines produce 1,247-3,804 tokens on average, while AutoPatent outputs 11,433-15,481 tokens, and SFT outputs are also long. Section 5.1 itself notes that n-gram metrics reward repeated n-grams and short sentences. This makes the objective-metric comparison in Table 2 length-confounded: a long document that reuses draft phrases can mechanically inflate precision-based metrics, and ROUGE recall can be inflated by length. The SFT rows illustrate the same problem: LLAMA3.1-8B+SFT reaches BLEU 39.62 with 17,052 tokens, but its IRR of 49.17 at t=0.2 shows heavy repetition, and the case study confirms poor quality. The paper therefore needs length-controlled or length-normalized comparisons (e.g., truncation to a common token budget, or per-chunk matching), and IRR should be reported for every row in Table 2 before the cross-model superiority claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figure 4] The human evaluation is based on only 50 generated patents and three experts, with no inter-annotator agreement, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests. The reported win counts for AutoPatent over models such as Qwen2.5-72B or LLAMA3.1-70B are moderate and could be within sampling variation; the paper should report exact counts, per-expert agreement, and a paired significance test. In addition, because AutoPatent outputs are systematically much longer and include full sections and flowcharts, the 'single-bind' protocol may not prevent evaluators from identifying the AutoPatent condition; this should be acknowledged and, ideally, controlled by matching output length or by asking experts to evaluate sections independently.
  4. [Section 4.1, Appendix B.4, Conclusion] The examiner agent described in Section 4.1 and Appendix B.4 checks a rubric of accuracy, logic, comprehensiveness, clarity, coherence, consistency, and alignment with the draft; it does not evaluate novelty, non-obviousness, enablement, or prior art, which are the patentability requirements cited in the Introduction. Yet the Introduction and Conclusion describe AutoPatent as generating 'high-quality complete patent documents' and state that 'the quality of patents generated by AutoPatent rivals that of human authorship.' These claims are not supported by the evaluation, and they are in direct tension with the Ethics Statement, which says the generated patents are 'not yet sufficient to be submitted directly to the IP office' and 'still require modification by a patent agent.' The conclusions should be softened, or the examiner rubric and the benchmark should be extended to cover substantive patentability criteria.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (2)] The notation C2_n in Eq. (2) is not defined; please state explicitly that it is the binomial coefficient (n choose 2) and define the smoothing term epsilon more precisely.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 contains untranslated Chinese text in the diagram and caption (e.g., 'Subsection，质量评估，再返回修改，直到通过'); this should be in English.
  3. [Section 5.1] 'single-bind review' appears to mean 'single-blind'; please correct the wording.
  4. [Section 6.1 and Table 4] The phrase 'observing significant improvement' is used for BERTScore and other metrics without a statistical test; please describe the evaluation protocol or avoid the word 'significant.'
  5. [Appendix A.2, Table 6] The quality requirement for Question 5 restates the technical-solution requirement rather than requiring figure-by-figure descriptions, which is inconsistent with the definition of q5 in Table 5; please correct the prompt or clarify the intended mapping.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

D2P benchmark drafts are generated from the target patents themselves, so the reported 'prediction' scores partly measure reconstruction of the reference from an LLM summary of it; this is a partial self-definitional circularity in the benchmark, not in the framework logic.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (D2P Dataset Construction), 'Draft Construction'; also Section 3.1 Eq. (1) and Section 5.1 objective metrics]
    "For the patent P, we simulate GPT-4o-mini as the inventor, asking it the five questions q1, q2, ..., q5. The corresponding answers a1, a2, ..., a5 are then combined to form the draft."

    The benchmark input D is generated from the target patent P (D = GPT-4o-mini(P, five questions)); the objective evaluation then scores generated patents against P using BLEU/ROUGE. The task is therefore not 'inventor draft → patent' but 'LLM summary of P → P'. A model that can expand a detailed summary of P will score well, and the fine-tuning data (draft-title, draft-PGTree, draft-description) are all derived from the same P. The paper's central claim that AutoPatent generates better patents than larger LLMs is thus partially self-referential: the test input is a function of the test output. This does not invalidate the relative framework comparison, but it makes the absolute 'Draft2Patent' capability claim untested against independent inventor drafts.

full rationale

The AutoPatent framework itself is a legitimate multi-agent pipeline; the ablations and human-eval comparisons among methods are not circular. The circularity is confined to the benchmark construction: D2P makes the input draft a function of the target patent, so the task measures reconstruction fidelity rather than independent drafting. Because the paper's headline claim is expressed as superiority on this benchmark, the claim inherits that partial circularity. No external benchmark or real inventor draft is used to validate transfer. Score 4 reflects that the framework's relative gains are still meaningful, but the absolute 'Draft2Patent' capability claim is not independently grounded.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on domain assumptions about patent representativeness, the validity of GPT-generated drafts as inventor inputs, and the reliability of human pairwise judgments. There are no fit parameters in the proposed framework beyond IRR thresholds; external corpora (HUPD) and LLM hyperparameters are inputs, not free parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • IRR threshold t = 0.2 and 0.4
    The inverse repetition rate depends on a hand-chosen Jaccard threshold to classify sentence pairs as repetitions; results are reported at both thresholds but the metric's sensitivity to t is not analyzed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Granted ACCEPTED patents in HUPD are a valid source of complete, high-quality patents.
    Section 3.2: drafts and references are extracted from HUPD, assuming these patents represent real-world patent quality and structure.
  • domain assumption Five fixed questions and GPT-4o-mini answers suffice to capture the invention's essential content.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.1 define the draft as five Q/A pairs; if these questions omit key legal or technical detail, the benchmark becomes unrealistically easy (reconstructing from a full summary).
  • domain assumption GPT-4o (as examiner) and human patent agents reliably filter drafts to sufficient quality.
    Section 3.2 Draft Quality Review; the filtering standard is defined by the authors' own prompts, so quality is internally rather than externally grounded.
  • domain assumption Human experts' pairwise preferences correlate with real patent validity.
    Section 5.1 and Appendix C.2 define six subjective dimensions; no validation against actual grant outcomes or invalidation risk is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The examiner agent's Pass criteria (Appendix B.4) align with true patentability requirements.
    The reviewer prompt defines quality in terms of accuracy, logic, comprehensiveness, clarity, coherence, consistency, which are the paper's own constructs; the loop optimizes toward these internal standards.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AutoPatent: A Multi-Agent Framework for Automatic Patent Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIJL4OZ4

@misc{pith2026241209796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AutoPatent: A Multi-Agent Framework for Automatic Patent Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIJL4OZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09796}
}
read the original abstract

As the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to advance, the field of patent processing has garnered increased attention within the natural language processing community. However, the majority of research has been concentrated on classification tasks, such as patent categorization and examination, or on short text generation tasks like patent summarization and patent quizzes. In this paper, we introduce a novel and practical task known as Draft2Patent, along with its corresponding D2P benchmark, which challenges LLMs to generate full-length patents averaging 17K tokens based on initial drafts. Patents present a significant challenge to LLMs due to their specialized nature, standardized terminology, and extensive length. We propose a multi-agent framework called AutoPatent which leverages the LLM-based planner agent, writer agents, and examiner agent with PGTree and RRAG to generate lengthy, intricate, and high-quality complete patent documents. The experimental results demonstrate that our AutoPatent framework significantly enhances the ability to generate comprehensive patents across various LLMs. Furthermore, we have discovered that patents generated solely with the AutoPatent framework based on the Qwen2.5-7B model outperform those produced by larger and more powerful LLMs, such as GPT-4o, Qwen2.5-72B, and LLAMA3.1-70B, in both objective metrics and human evaluations. We will make the data and code available upon acceptance at \url{https://github.com/QiYao-Wang/AutoPatent}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Draft2Patent Task. Automating patent drafting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the AutoPatent framework, which includes eight agents and four steps for automatically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PGTree structure. The input of the planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Human evaluation results. For each comparison, the left number indicates the count of AutoPatent wins, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A case for repetition error of patent generated by SFT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A case for patent’s comprehensiveness generated using (a) zero-shot prompting and (b) Supervised [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A case for patent’s comprehensiveness generated using AutoPatent framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. PATENTWRITER: A Benchmarking Study for Patent Drafting with LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the first unified benchmark for LLM-generated patent abstracts and reports that GPT-4o and Llama 3 produce abstracts with high BERTScore and useful downstream task performance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Yushi Bai, Jiajie Zhang, Xin Lv, Linzhi Zheng, Siqi Zhu, Lei Hou, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, and Juanzi Li. 2024. Longwriter: Unleashing 10,000+ word generation from long context llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07055

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Silvia Casola, Alberto Lavelli, and Horacio Saggion. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259949758 Creating a silver standard for patent simplification . Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Guhong Chen, Liyang Fan, Zihan Gong, Nan Xie, Zixuan Li, Ziqiang Liu, Chengming Li, Qiang Qu, Shiwen Ni, and Min Yang. 2024 a . Agentcourt: Simulating court with adversarial evolvable lawyer agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08089

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Jiangjie Chen, Xintao Wang, Rui Xu, Siyu Yuan, Yikai Zhang, Wei Shi, Jian Xie, Shuang Li, Ruihan Yang, Tinghui Zhu, Aili Chen, Nianqi Li, Lida Chen, Caiyu Hu, Siye Wu, Scott Ren, Ziquan Fu, and Yanghua Xiao. 2024 b . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:269448713 From persona to personalization: A survey on role-playing language agents . ArXiv, abs/2404.18231

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Zhengwen Zhang, Xiangrui Meng, Sirui Hong, Wenhao Li, Zihao Wang, Zekai Wang, Feng Yin, Junhua Zhao, and Xiuqiang He. 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:266844118 Exploring large language model based intelligent agents: Definitions, methods, and prospects . ArXiv, abs/2401.03428

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Jiaxi Cui, Zongjia Li, Yang Yan, Bohua Chen, and Li Yuan. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259274889 Chatlaw: A multi-agent collaborative legal assistant with knowledge graph enhanced mixture-of-experts large language model

    2023

  8. [8]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    arXiv 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    EPO. 1994. http://tind.wipo.int/record/17847 Guidelines for examination in the european patent office. page 1 volume

    1994

  2. [10]

    Shanghua Gao, Ada Fang, Yepeng Huang, Valentina Giunchiglia, Ayush Noori, Jonathan Richard Schwarz, Yasha Ektefaie, Jovana Kondic, and Marinka Zitnik. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.09.022 Empowering biomedical discovery with ai agents . Cell, 187(22):6125--6151

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V. Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/890 Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third ...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Calzolari Nicoletta Wiggins, Dion

    Kenneth Heafield, Elaine Farrow, Jelmer van der Linde, Gema Ram \' rez-S \'a nchez, editor = "Calzolari Nicoletta Wiggins, Dion", Fr \'e d \'e ric B \'e chet, Philippe Blache, Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Hitoshi Isahara, Bente Maegaard, Jos...

    2022

  5. [13]

    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 J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=VtmBAGCN7o Meta GP...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Fantine Huot, Reinald Kim Amplayo, Jennimaria Palomaki, Alice Shoshana Jakobovits, Elizabeth Clark, and Mirella Lapata. 2024. Agents' room: Narrative generation through multi-step collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02603

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lekang Jiang and Stephan Goetz. 2024. Artificial intelligence exploring the patent field. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04105

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lekang Jiang, Caiqi Zhang, Pascal A Scherz, and Stephan Goetz. 2024. Can large language models generate high-quality patent claims? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19465

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yubin Kim, Chanwoo Park, Hyewon Jeong, Yik Siu Chan, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Hyeonhoon Lee, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2024. Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37

    2024

  11. [19]

    Valentin Knappich, Simon Razniewski, Anna H \"a tty, and Annemarie Friedrich. 2024. Pap2pat: Towards automated paper-to-patent drafting using chunk-based outline-guided generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07009

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Jieh-Sheng Lee. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3418503 Controlling patent text generation by structural metadata . In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM '20, page 3241–3244, New York, NY, USA. Association for...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Jieh-Sheng Lee and Jieh Hsiang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2020.101983 Patent claim generation by fine-tuning openai gpt-2 . World Patent Information, 62:101983

    2020

  14. [22]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013 ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries . In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74--81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2004

  15. [23]

    Shiwen Ni, Minghuan Tan, Yuelin Bai, Fuqiang Niu, Min Yang, Bowen Zhang, Ruifeng Xu, Xiaojun Chen, Chengming Li, and Xiping Hu. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.1018 M o ZIP : A multilingual benchmark to evaluate large language models in intellectual property . In...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Shiwen Ni and Min Yang. 2024. Educational-psychological dialogue robot based on multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03847

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073135 B leu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation . In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311--3...

    2002

  18. [26]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners

  19. [27]

    Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, and Mitesh M

    Ananya B. Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485766 A survey of evaluation metrics used for nlg systems . ACM Comput. Surv., 55(2)

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Yijia Shao, Yucheng Jiang, Theodore Kanell, Peter Xu, Omar Khattab, and Monica Lam. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.347 Assisting in writing W ikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North ...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Eva Sharma, Chen Li, and Lu Wang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1212 BIGPATENT : A large-scale dataset for abstractive and coherent summarization . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2204--2213, Florence, I...

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Souza, Matheus E

    Cinthia M. Souza, Matheus E. Santos, Magali R. G. Meireles, and Paulo E. M. Almeida. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30244-3_42 Using summarization techniques on patent database through computational intelligence . In Progress in Artificial Intelligence: 19th EPIA Conf...

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Jingyun Sun, Chengxiao Dai, Zhongze Luo, Yangbo Chang, and Yang Li. 2024 b . Lawluo: A chinese law firm co-run by llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16252

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Suproteem Sarkar, Scott D Kominers, and Stuart Shieber. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/b4b02a09f2e6ad29fdbeb1386d68f4c4-Paper-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.pdf The harvard uspto patent dataset: A large-scale, well-s...

    2023

  25. [34]

    Andrew Toole, Nicholas Pairolero, Alexander Giczy, James Forman, Christyann Pulliam, Matthew Such, and B Rifkin. 2020. Inventing ai: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with us patents. US Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 5:2020

    2020

  26. [35]

    USTPO. 2020. http://tind.wipo.int/record/41638 Manual of patent examining procedure . pages 4 v. (loose--leaf). This resource was extracted from USPTO.gov

    2020

  27. [36]

    Qiyao Wang, Jianguo Huang, Shule Lu, Yuan Lin, Kan Xu, Liang Yang, and Hongfei Lin. 2024. Ipeval: A bilingual intellectual property agency consultation evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12386

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Matthias Wirth, Volker D H \"a hnke, Franco Mascia, Arnaud W \'e ry, Konrad Vowinckel, Marco del Rey, Ra \'u l Mohedano del Pozo, Pau Montes, and Alexander Klenner-Bajaja. 2023. Building machine translation tools for patent language: A data generation strategy at the european ...

    2023

  29. [38]

    World Intellectual Property Organization . 2022. WIPO Patent Drafting Manual - Second Edition. World Intellectual Property Organization, 34, chemin des Colombettes, P.O. Box 18, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Photo credits: Getty Images

    2022

  30. [39]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze Bai, Jinzheng...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Hongyang Yang. 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270712153 Finrobot: An open-source ai agent platform for financial applications using large language models . SSRN Electronic Journal

    2024

  32. [41]

    Suchow, and Khaldoun Khashanah

    Yangyang Yu, Haohang Li, Zhi Chen, Yuechen Jiang, Yang Li, Denghui Zhang, Rong Liu, Jordan W. Suchow, and Khaldoun Khashanah. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:265445755 Finmem: A performance-enhanced llm trading agent with layered memory and character design . In...

    2023

  33. [42]

    Wentao Zhang, Lingxuan Zhao, Haochong Xia, Shuo Sun, Jiaze Sun, Molei Qin, Xinyi Li, Yuqing Zhao, Yilei Zhao, Xinyu Cai, Longtao Zheng, Xinrun Wang, and Bo An. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671801 A multimodal foundation agent for financial trading: Tool-augmented, di...

    2024

  34. [43]

    You Zuo, Kim Gerdes, \'E ric Clergerie, and Beno \^ t Sagot. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.147 P atent E val: Understanding errors in patent generation . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computationa...

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  36. [45]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.