Bingxin Zhao

Jisen Li, Bingxuan Li, Nanyi Jiang et al.

Scientific literature search often requires more than retrieving papers from a single query: users' intents are underspecified, preference-dependent, and evolve through interaction. Existing search agents typically rely on fixed pipelines or implicit language-only reasoning, making their search strategies difficult to control, inspect, and refine. We introduce PaperPilot, a multi-turn literature search agent that frames scientific search as workflow induction. Given an anchor paper and a user query, PaperPilot constructs an executable DAG of paper-search operators, including keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction. User feedback is then used to refine both the query and the workflow itself. We train PaperPilot with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled workflow corruptions. Experiments show that PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent under multi-turn interaction, increasing Hit@5 from 58.0 to 77.0, MRR from 47.5 to 59.4, and nDCG@10 from 26.8 to 32.5, while reducing workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%. These results show that explicit, editable search workflows provide an effective and controllable interface for aligning literature search agents with complex scientific intent.

Buxin Su, Natalie Collina, Garrett Wen et al.

Peer review in academic research aims not only to ensure factual correctness but also to identify work of high scientific potential that can shape future research directions. This task is especially critical in fast-moving fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), yet it has become increasingly difficult given the rapid growth of submissions. In this paper, we investigate an underexplored measure for identifying high-impact research: authors' own rankings of their multiple submissions to the same AI conference. Grounded in game-theoretic reasoning, we hypothesize that self-rankings are informative because authors possess unique understanding of their work's conceptual depth and long-term promise. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a large-scale experiment at a leading AI conference, where 1,342 researchers self-ranked their 2,592 submissions by perceived quality. Tracking outcomes over more than a year, we found that papers ranked highest by their authors received twice as many citations as their lowest-ranked counterparts; self-rankings were especially effective at identifying highly cited papers (those with over 150 citations). Moreover, we showed that self-rankings outperformed peer review scores in predicting future citation counts. Our results remained robust after accounting for confounders such as preprint posting time and self-citations. Together, these findings demonstrate that authors' self-rankings provide a reliable and valuable complement to peer review for identifying and elevating high-impact research in AI.