arXiv subjects

Vidushee Vats

Publications and source records attributed to Vidushee Vats.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AgentTune: A Unified Training Lifecycle for Tool-Using LLM Agents

Tool-using agents increasingly require a common substrate for building, training, evaluating, distilling, and maintaining agentic systems, yet existing tooling typically addresses these stages in isolation. We present AgentTune, a source-available Python library that provides a unified framework for developing and optimizing tool-using agents. At its core, AgentTune introduces a two-tier EventLog representation that preserves agent trajectories while supporting consistent projections for training, evaluation, and auditing. Building on this substrate, the library provides a shared agent runtime, tool-calling reinforcement learning, agentic distillation, retrieval-augmented generation, decision workflows, evaluation utilities, and a designed path toward self-healing agents. These components are exposed through composable interfaces so that agent strategies, training methods, evaluation procedures, and recovery mechanisms can be combined without requiring separate representations or pipelines. We demonstrate the framework across agentic tasks including legal contract search and domain-specific applications, illustrating its use for trajectory-based optimization, tool-use evaluation, and cross-task agent development. AgentTune is released as a source-available library at https://github.com/Lexsi-Labs/AgentTune

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

SlideLab: Audience-Centered Scientific Slide Generation and Evaluation

Scientific presentations are more than summaries of research papers. They need to present the work in a coherent sequence, explain the main ideas clearly, and help the audience follow the presentation. We present SlideLab, a training-free multi-agent framework for generating scientific presentations from research papers. SlideLab first plans the presentation narrative, then builds and iteratively refines a shared slide deck using agents for content planning, visual generation, layout refinement, and grounding verification. In a blind human preference study, SlideLab was preferred over both open-source and commercial systems on 77% of papers while using roughly 4 times fewer inference tokens than the strongest open-source baseline. We also introduce ConfArena, an audience-oriented evaluation framework that simulates a conference room and assesses presentations slide by slide. ConfArena matches human system rankings and detects injected presentation problems, including falsified numbers, degraded figures, dropped slides, and shuffled slide order.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing

Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it leads to a measurable improvement in the paper. We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer, and evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields. To mirror how human authors build on earlier drafts, the AI scientist has access to its previous versions during revision. To avoid bias from prior judgments, however, each review is generated independently, with the reviewer having no memory of earlier feedback or scores. We compare three revision settings: one initialized with the original venue reviews, one initialized with AI-generated reviews, and autonomous self-revision using the same fixed prompt in every round. Because the reviewer both guides and evaluates the revision, we also assess the human-initialized revisions using Stanford Reviewer as an independent evaluator. Reviewer-guided revision consistently improves more than fixed-prompt self-revision, and Stanford Reviewer also assigns higher scores to later revisions. AppliedScientist resolves 128 of 150 execution-related weaknesses (85.3%), but only 2 of 18 idea-related weaknesses (11.1%), suggesting that iterative revision is effective at improving experiments and implementation, but rarely changes concerns about novelty or significance.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

cs.CL↗