Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.29234

Rethinking Literature Search Evaluation: Deep Research Helps, and Human Citation Lists Are Not a Ground Truth

Gaurav Sahu·Laurent Charlin·Christopher Pal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study large-scale literature search from two complementary angles: improving the retrieval pipeline, and stress-testing the human reference list as an evaluation target. First, we implement a Deep Research pipeline that processes the full query paper and expands the retrieved results breadth-first along their bibliographies, and show that it substantially outperforms vanilla API-only search, raising recall on RollingEval-Jun25 (a 250-paper literature-search benchmark) from below 20% to above 80%. Second, we use a neutral LLM-as-a-judge to determine if human references are sound ground truth for the task. We find significant limitations: only 51% of human citations are judged moderately relevant or higher, against 86--88% for the strongest AI-based re-rankers. We study this gap on the OpenAlex co-authorship graph, finding that humans are 2.5x more likely than the best AI re-rankers to cite a direct collaborator. Together, our results argue against single-axis literature-search evaluation: recall, topical-relevance scoring, ranked-list diversity, and a co-authorship-distance diagnostic each measure complementary properties of citation quality and should be reported jointly.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gaurav Sahu, Laurent Charlin, Christopher Pal. 2026-05-28. Rethinking Literature Search Evaluation: Deep Research Helps, and Human Citation Lists Are Not a Ground Truth. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29234

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI

Large language models (LLMs) are often praised for exhibiting near-human performance on a wide range of tasks and valued for their ability to hold a general conversation. The rise of agentic AI systems is, however, ushering in a mass of applications in which language models perform a small number of specialized tasks repetitively and with little variation. Here we lay out the position that small language models (SLMs) are sufficiently powerful, inherently more suitable, and necessarily more economical for many invocations in agentic systems, and are therefore the future of agentic AI. Our argumentation is grounded in the current level of capabilities exhibited by SLMs, the common architectures of agentic systems, and the economy of LM deployment. We further argue that in situations where general-purpose conversational abilities are essential, heterogeneous agentic systems (i.e., agents invoking multiple different models) are the natural choice. We discuss the potential barriers for the adoption of SLMs in agentic systems and outline a general LLM-to-SLM agent conversion algorithm. Our position, formulated as a value statement, highlights the significance of the operational and economic impact even a partial shift from LLMs to SLMs is to have on the AI agent industry. We aim to stimulate the discussion on the effective use of AI resources and hope to advance the efforts to lower the costs of AI of the present day. Calling for both contributions to and critique of our position, we commit to publishing all such correspondence at https://research.nvidia.com/labs/lpr/slm-agents.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

EndoCogniAgent: Closed-Loop Agentic Reasoning with Self-Consistency Validation for Endoscopic Diagnosis

Endoscopic diagnosis is an iterative process in which clinicians acquire, compare, and verify local visual evidence before reaching a conclusion. Current AI systems do not adequately support this process because fine-grained evidence acquisition and multi-step reasoning remain weakly coupled, complicating reconciliation of image-derived findings with their textual interpretations. This gives rise to two failure modes, hallucinated evidence and uncorrected error accumulation, that undermine diagnostic reliability. We propose EndoCogniAgent, a closed-loop agentic framework that formulates endoscopic diagnosis as a controlled state update process for integrating complementary visual and textual evidence. At each reasoning round, a central planner selects an evidence acquisition action, specialized expert tools extract spatial and semantic observations as structured textual evidence, and a self-consistency validation mechanism examines this evidence along two dimensions, knowledge consistency against the input image and temporal consistency with prior validated findings, before updating the diagnostic state. Validated observations are admitted into the evolving state to condition subsequent planning, while insufficiently supported or conflicting findings are retained with corrective feedback that redirects the planner toward additional verification. We further introduce EndoAgentBench, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 6,132 question-answer pairs from 11 endoscopic datasets, to evaluate diagnostic agents across a comprehensive diagnostic chain, from fine-grained visual perception to high-level diagnostic reasoning. EndoCogniAgent achieves 85.23% overall accuracy on perception tasks and 71.13% clinical acceptance rate on reasoning tasks. Blinded clinician evaluation further shows consistent improvements in diagnostic response quality over the evaluated baselines.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Navigating Taxonomic Expansions of Entity Sets Driven by Knowledge Bases

Recognizing similarities among entities is central to both human cognition and computational intelligence. Within this broader landscape, Entity Set Expansion is one prominent task aimed at taking an initial set of (tuples of) entities and identifying additional ones that share relevant semantic properties with the former, potentially repeating the process to form increasingly broader sets. However, this ``linear'' approach does not unveil the richer ``taxonomic'' structures present in knowledge resources. A recent logic-based framework introduces the notion of an expansion graph: a rooted directed acyclic graph where each node represents a semantic generalization labeled by a logical formula, and edges encode strict semantic inclusion. This structure supports taxonomic expansions of entity sets driven by knowledge bases. Yet, the potentially large size of such graphs may make full materialization impractical in real-world scenarios. To overcome this, we formalize reasoning tasks that check whether two tuples belong to comparable, incomparable, or the same nodes in the graph. Our results show that these tasks are intractable in general, that they remain intractable when the number of input tuples is bounded, and that they become solvable in polynomial time when the descriptions of the entities are small as well. The bounds we establish are tight. This enables local, incremental navigation of expansion graphs, supporting practical applications without requiring full graph construction.

cs.AI↗