Ashutosh Srivastava

Ashutosh Ojha, Vinay Aggarwal, Ashutosh Srivastava et al.

Real-world tasks often lack large labeled datasets, motivating extensive work on learning in low-data regimes. However, existing approaches such as few-shot prompting, instruction tuning, and synthetic data generation, continue to treat labeled or pseudo-labeled data as the primary learning signal. In contrast, human practitioners acquire expertise through repeated, self-directed interaction with the open web, progressively refining both domain knowledge and search strategies. We propose MEMENTO, a framework that treats the web as a learning signal rather than a stateless retrieval interface. MEMENTO operates at two levels: within each session, it conducts iterative web exploration via an Adaptive Exploration Tree (AET) that decomposes tasks into evolving questions and reflects on intermediate findings; across sessions, it accumulates experience through dual-channel memory, separating declarative knowledge (facts) from procedural knowledge (search strategies). This design enables agents to learn reusable research strategies and domain expertise from trajectories of web interaction without additional model training. We evaluate MEMENTO on two low-data professional domains: sales automation and legal research. Our empirical results show consistent improvements in performance over ReAct based baselines (+25.6% on sales automation and 36.5% on legal research), demonstrating that the web can serve as a scalable learning source for acquiring task-specific expertise in data-scarce settings.

Ashutosh Srivastava, Lokesh Nagalapatti, Gautam Jajoo et al.

Recent claims of strong performance by Large Language Models (LLMs) on causal discovery are undermined by a key flaw: many evaluations rely on benchmarks likely included in pretraining corpora. Thus, apparent success suggests that LLM-only methods, which ignore observational data, outperform classical statistical approaches. We challenge this narrative by asking: Do LLMs truly reason about causal structure, and how can we measure it without memorization concerns? Can they be trusted for real-world scientific discovery? We argue that realizing LLMs' potential for causal analysis requires two shifts: (P.1) developing robust evaluation protocols based on recent scientific studies to guard against dataset leakage, and (P.2) designing hybrid methods that combine LLM-derived knowledge with data-driven statistics. To address P.1, we encourage evaluating discovery methods on novel, real-world scientific studies. We outline a practical recipe for extracting causal graphs from recent publications released after an LLM's training cutoff, ensuring relevance and preventing memorization while capturing both established and novel relations. Compared to benchmarks like BNLearn, where LLMs achieve near-perfect accuracy, they perform far worse on our curated graphs, underscoring the need for statistical grounding. Supporting P.2, we show that using LLM predictions as priors for the classical PC algorithm significantly improves accuracy over both LLM-only and purely statistical methods. We call on the community to adopt science-grounded, leakage-resistant benchmarks and invest in hybrid causal discovery methods suited to real-world inquiry.