Aris research lit

Research Literature Review

The user will provide the research topic or paper URL as part of their request.

Constants

• PAPER_LIBRARY — Local directory containing user's paper collection (PDFs). Check these paths in order:
  1. papers/ in the current project directory
  2. literature/ in the current project directory
  3. Custom path specified by user
• MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS = 20 — Maximum number of local PDFs to scan (read first 3 pages each). If more are found, prioritize by filename relevance to the topic.

Workflow

Step 0: Scan Local Paper Library

Before searching online, check if the user already has relevant papers locally:

1. Locate library: Check PAPER_LIBRARY paths for PDF files

   • Search for papers/**/*.pdf and literature/**/*.pdf

2. Filter by relevance: Match filenames and first-page content against the research topic. Skip clearly unrelated papers.

3. Summarize relevant papers: For each relevant local PDF (up to MAX_LOCAL_PAPERS):

   • Read first 3 pages (title, abstract, intro)
   • Extract: title, authors, year, core contribution, relevance to topic
   • Flag papers that are directly related vs tangentially related

4. Build local knowledge base: Compile summaries into a "papers you already have" section. This becomes the starting point — external search fills the gaps.

If no local papers are found, skip to Step 1. If the user has a comprehensive local collection, the external search can be more targeted (focus on what's missing).

Step 1: Search (external)

• Use WebSearch to find recent papers on the topic
• Check arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar
• Focus on papers from last 2 years unless studying foundational work
• De-duplicate: Skip papers already found in the local library

For arXiv searches:

• Use the arXiv API or web search with site:arxiv.org
• Try at least 3 different query formulations
• Include year filters for recent work
• For each potentially relevant paper, fetch its abstract page

Step 2: Deep Read (top 5-8 papers)

For the most relevant papers found in Step 1:

1. Fetch the full abstract and introduction
2. Extract: problem, method, key results, limitations
3. Note how each paper relates to the user's topic
4. Identify gaps and open problems mentioned across papers

Step 3: Synthesize

Compile findings into a structured report:

## Literature Review: [topic]

### Papers You Already Have
| # | Title | Year | Venue | Relevance | Key Contribution |
|---|-------|------|-------|-----------|------------------|

### Key Papers Found
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Venue | Core Idea | Relevance |
|---|-------|---------|------|-------|-----------|-----------|

### Landscape Summary
[2-3 paragraph synthesis of the research area]

### Open Problems / Gaps
1. [Gap 1] — mentioned by [paper1], [paper3]
2. [Gap 2] — mentioned by [paper2]
3. [Gap 3] — inferred from the gap between [paper1] and [paper4]

### Suggested Next Steps
- [Direction 1 based on gaps]
- [Direction 2]
- [Direction 3]

Important Rules

• Anti-hallucination: Never fabricate paper titles, authors, arXiv IDs, or DOIs. Every paper must be verified via web search. If uncertain, tag [UNVERIFIED].
• De-duplicate: The same paper may appear under different URLs (arXiv vs. published venue). Match by title to avoid duplicates.
• Relevance over quantity: 8 well-chosen papers beat 30 random ones. Prioritize papers that directly address the user's topic.
• Recent first: Unless the user asks for foundational work, prioritize papers from the last 2 years.
• Read before summarizing: Never summarize a paper from its title alone — always fetch at least the abstract.