[physicsguy]

My first impression is that it’s quite cool, but it should weight things by importance to some degree.

I tried a search on my previous research area (https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/5408b4...) and it missed some key theoretical papers. At the same time, it picked up the three or four papers I’d expected it to find plus a PhD thesis I expected it to find. The results at the top of the list though are very recent and one of them is on something totally different to what I asked it for (“Skyrmion bubbles” != “Skyrmions”). The 7th result is an absolutely core paper, would be the one I’d give to a new PhD student going into this area and the one I’d have expected it to push up to the top of the list.

[jramette]

Appreciate the comments. One thing to note: how much compute it takes to "get everything" varies from search to search, and researchers don't always care about that and usually care most about getting a few specifically relevant results, so we start each search with a first pass with a fixed amount of compute. I know there's a lot to absorb on each search page, but if look near the bottom of the summary, Undermind is predicting is has only found about 80% of the papers with the compute dedicated to this search so far. Logged in users on Pro accounts can "extend" the search until it's gotten 90% or more to ensure exhaustiveness. One other thing I'd be curious about is your notion of "importance" here, can you help us define that here? Any ideas for how would say a very smart human assistant who's not intimately familiar with your community's interests be able to pick out paper 7 from the list according to what you mean by importance? Maybe we need a way to communicate to the system that you're interested in pedagogical or seminal works in the field?

[Mkengine]

Not OP and I don't know if that would be feasible for you, but a Pro feature could be something like https://asreview.nl to determine importance/relevance?