Authors: Martin Weiss, Miles Q. Li, Alejandro H. Artiles, Yacine Mkhinini, Chris Pal, Hugo Larochelle, Nasim Rahaman
Abstract
Lacuna is a research map for machine learning that uses LLMs to turn papers and scholarly metadata into markdown summaries, concept elements, research directions, and research proposals. Each item keeps links to the primary source records and papers that support it. We release the map with web, markdown, and MCP interfaces. Across LitSearch, Multi-XScience-CS/ML, and ScholarQA-CS-ML, Lacuna outperforms OpenScholar with the strongest gains on LitSearch retrieval (Recall@10 0.538 vs. 0.424 for OpenScholar v3). We also evaluate Lacuna Deep Research, a multi-stage report agent over the map, on 25 ReportBench-ML survey tasks: Lacuna Deep Research reaches 0.052 citation F1, 0.339 citation precision, 99 expert-reference hits, and 7.82/10 RACE report quality, while GPT-Researcher reaches 0.039 F1, 0.290 precision, 72 hits, and 5.24/10 RACE.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scholar recommenders, shaping who is seen as an expert in academia. Existing audits remain English-centric, single discipline, and persona-agnostic, leaving the source of output variability poorly understood. To this end, we propose a benchmark that disentangles the effects of model choice and prompt design on recommendations. We audit 43 LLMs by varying persona prompts (language, location, role-and-task) and context (field, seniority, k). Recommended scholars are compared against Semantic Scholar over six scientific disciplines to measure technical quality (factuality, coverage) and social representativeness (diversity, parity). Basic technical quality is driven by model choice, factuality and parity by context, and diversity by location. South Africa prompts yield less factual lists, while Japan prompts yield highly factual but homogeneous lists skewed toward highly productive scholars. Prompt design is thus a non-trivial axis of LLM-based scholar discovery and should be systematically audited alongside model choice.
Deep research over data lakes requires an LLM agent to investigate evidence across thousands of heterogeneous tables and passages to synthesize a report. Existing methods perform iterative retrieval and generation, letting accumulated context determine what to investigate next, which can overexploit locally promising evidence and fail to cover distinct semantic regions under a fixed budget. To address this, we cast deep research over data lakes as a budgeted search problem and present Baikal - a framework that clusters heterogeneous evidence into semantic regions, then searches over them adaptively to balance exploration and exploitation. Within each selected region, Baikal generates and investigates region-grounded subquestions, using finding quality as rewards to update region-level value estimates and guide search under policies ranging from random and LLM-guided selection to Bayesian ε-greedy and UCB. We evaluate Baikal on 15 queries each over HybridQA and TAT-QA data lakes containing 10,993 and 2,757 tables, respectively, together with 227K Wikipedia passages and 13K financial report passages. We assess research quality with a new rubric covering groundedness, relevance, diversity, and utility, and use GPT-5-mini to score Baikal and strong baselines, including DeepSearcher and an OpenCode research agent with retrieval and clustering variants. Across both data lakes, Baikal performs strongly under several region-selection policies; its best configuration improves report scores over the strongest baselines by 28% on HybridQA and 36% on TAT-QA. Our analyses attribute these gains to organizing and exploring semantic evidence regions, which improves groundedness and diversity and yields more useful findings under the same subquestion budget. These results demonstrate the value of structured semantic exploration for systematic research and discovery over heterogeneous data lakes.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as research agents, yet their ability to track shifts in research attention is difficult to evaluate because reviews and research ideas lack uniquely verifiable outcomes. We introduce Research Attention Prediction (RAP), a rolling benchmark covering 278 AI/ML fields and 1,390 episodes. At each cut-off, an LLM agent searches a temporally restricted arXiv corpus and predicts the next six months' paper shares across eight frozen research directions. Search generally helps, but all four diagnostic models perform worse than an exact-count exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) baseline in compositional accuracy. We identify two linked bottlenecks. Under cumulative-history access, State carry-forward outperforms direct Forecast for all four diagnostic models; frozen-evidence replay links a shared component of this reversal to Forecast-oriented policies retrieving a smaller share of recent evidence. Even with exact historical activity, future-specific updating remains limited, with only GPT-5.5 plus reopened Search slightly surpassing EWMA. Fine-tuning on realised outcomes improves Qwen3-4B's forecast Spearman correlation by 0.105 on held-out fields at later origins, with gains also on change-rich episodes.