Search Scholar Feed's 600k+ CS/AI/ML paper corpus. Defaults to semantic (embedding) search — finds conceptually related papers even when the user's wording doesn't match the paper's title/abstract. Pass mode='keyword' for exact-string full-text search. CAVEAT: semantic search often misses old high-citation CANONICAL papers (e.g. foundational anchors like H2O for KV eviction, GRIT for unified embedding+generation) because the ranker prefers recent stylistically-matched papers. If you're hunting the canonical anchor for an area, parse the top-5 result abstracts for baseline mentions ('we compare against X, Y, Z'), then look the most-mentioned name up directly. Returns papers with LLM-generated summaries, novelty scores, and structured extraction data. Default response is a lean 13-field shape (arxiv_id, title, authors, year, categories, has_code, github_url, citation_count, venue_name, llm_summary, llm_significance, llm_novelty_score, impact_pct) — pass verbose=true or fields=... for the full shape with method/task/dataset extraction. RANKING BY IMPACT — two different notions, don't confuse them: (1) PROVEN impact = citations. For 'the important/seminal papers on topic X', pass sort='impactful' (most-cited among the relevant) or sort='balanced' (relevant AND well-cited). This is the right tool for established/foundational work. (2) FORECAST impact = impact_pct (0-100), an ML percentile of PREDICTED citations computed WITHIN a paper's own arXiv-category cohort over the last ~90 days — so it is a cohort-relative rank, not an absolute score: impact_pct=100 means 'top of its category this window', which in a quiet category is a much weaker claim than in a busy one. (An A+/A/B/C/D impact_tier field was previously returned alongside it; it was removed because a single global cutoff ladder could not be calibrated honestly across both fresh and mature papers. Do not expect it, and do not treat any letter grade you may have cached as current.) For 'what's rising/new in X' pass sort='trending' or filter impact_min=N — but NOTE impact_pct is NULL on everything older than ~90 days, so impact_min DROPS all established/canonical papers (it is NOT a way to find the influential papers in a niche — use sort='impactful' for that). Both impact notions are distinct from llm_novelty_score (new-idea-ness, an orthogonal filter). (3) ADOPTION impact = GitHub traction. Pass sort='community' to rank by real-world engineering adoption (stars + star-velocity) — the papers practitioners are actually running/building on, a signal independent of citations. But NOTE its coverage: github_stars is 0-defaulted, so an unmeasured repo is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a genuinely unstarred one (it reads as 0 stars, not NULL), and star coverage is heavily skewed toward recently-published papers — most older papers with a repo have never had stars fetched, so their real popularity is invisible here. sort='community' therefore buries established/canonical work rather than ranking it low on merit. Treat a 0 as 'unknown', not 'unpopular', and use sort='impactful' or min_citations for older work. Coverage is being backfilled, so this skew shrinks over time; never infer a paper is unadopted from a 0. Filter on it with min_stars=N (minimum GitHub stars) and has_code=true (only papers with a code release); has_code/min_stars surface RUNNABLE/ADOPTED work, the engineering counterpart to citations. github_url_exists=true is the stricter has_code (requires a linked repo). Supports filtering by category, novelty, recency, method, task, dataset, and contribution type — plus min_citations (minimum PROVEN citations, keeps established papers unlike the ~90-day impact_min) and an explicit date window via published_after / published_before ('YYYY-MM-DD', vs days' rolling lookback). v3 ABSORPTIONS: pass sort='trending' to rank by rising/forecast impact (impact_pct); pass anchor_paper_id to replicate find_similar (q is ignored in anchor mode, results carry similarity_score); pass scope_to_citations_of to restrict search to a paper's citation graph (replaces find_citations_about).
Get full details for one or more papers by arXiv ID. Pass a single-element array for one paper; pass multiple IDs to batch-fetch up to 50 papers in one call (replaces the removed batch_lookup tool). Pass format='bibtex' to get a .bib citation entry (replaces the removed export_bibtex tool — bibtex is single-paper only; for multi-paper bibtex, call repeatedly). Default returns a lean 13-field shape (arxiv_id, title, authors, year, categories, has_code, github_url, citation_count, venue_name, llm_summary, llm_significance, llm_novelty_score, impact_pct — where impact_pct is the ML-forecast impact percentile 0-100 computed WITHIN the paper's own arXiv-category cohort, so it is a cohort-relative rank rather than an absolute score, and is NULL on older papers outside the recent ~90-day scoring window. A companion A+/A/B/C/D impact_tier was previously returned; it was removed because one global cutoff ladder could not be calibrated honestly across both fresh and mature papers). Pass verbose=true for the full shape with structured extraction (method_name, contribution_type, task_category, datasets, baselines) and institution_tags. Use fields='arxiv_id,title,abstract' to select an exact subset, or fetch_fulltext with sections='all' for the full paper.
Extract paper content from an arXiv paper's LaTeX source, falling back to PDF text. Two modes: 'results' (default) returns ~800 chars of results/experiments + up to 3 table captions — lean, ideal for checking a reported number. 'all' returns full paper sections (abstract, introduction, related work, method, results, conclusion) at up to 3000 chars each + 5 table captions, ~15KB, so prefer 'results' unless you need the whole paper. Content is available for ~95% of arXiv papers; a 404 means neither LaTeX nor PDF extraction yielded text. May take a few seconds.
Two-mode author tool — replaces discover_authors and get_author. Provide exactly one of q or id. Q-MODE (q=...): search for researchers by topic or name — uses embedding similarity for topics ('efficient LLM inference'), fuzzy matching for names ('Yann LeCun'). Returns a list of matching authors with author_id, name, h_index, total_papers, primary_field, research_topics. ID-MODE (id=...): look up a single author profile by author_id (obtained from a previous q-mode call or from co_author_graph results). Returns h-index, total citations, global rank, primary field, novelty score distribution, research topics, code/venue scores, years active, and their top 10 papers by rank score.
Find the co-authorship neighborhood of one or more authors. Given a list of author_ids, returns edges {from, to, papers_count, last_collab_year} where 'from' is one of the input authors and 'to' is any co-author appearing on a shared paper within the window. Use for AC reviewer triage (find conflicts), disambiguating researchers (who do they actually work with?), or expanding an author seed into a research community. window_years defaults to 10. Result is capped at 500 edges, sorted by papers_count DESC.
Returns the FOUNDATIONAL WORK FOR A PAPER'S NICHE via the citation graph — the relative question ('what is foundational for THIS paper's specific sub-field', often itself only modestly cited) rather than the obvious global landmarks. Anchors on the paper, takes its embedding neighbourhood as the niche, and ranks what the niche cites into three tiers: `niche_roots` (the niche-specific foundations, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on them — surfaces canonical anchors that semantic search misses), `field_level` (broader secondary foundations), and `discipline` (universal landmarks like Attention Is All You Need, collapsed out of the way). Each paper carries `cited_by_in_niche` evidence so the claim is grounded, not asserted. Use this to trace prior art / lineage for a paper, or to find the canonical methods a niche is built on. Complements get_field_orientation (which is topic-anchored and retrieval-only). No Pro key and no LLM calls required.