liyingze07-svg / EffectiveAutoResearch-EAR-

中文 · Examples · Contributing
EAR combines retrieval, critique and revision to produce research proposals, mathematical manuscripts and evidence-linked reviewer responses. **The three workflows run independently.**
## Core philosophy
**Spend human time on direction and judgment.** EAR is designed to reduce active human effort subject to research-quality and compute-budget constraints.
- **Challenge ideas early.** Retrieval and critique expose overlap and help narrow a candidate before further investment.
- **Learn from feedback.** Revise the research artifact within a task; evolve the research strategy across tasks.
- **Keep the evidence.** Save literature, proofs, manuscript snapshots and reviews so the work can be inspected and continued.
## Three research modules
| Module | Start with | Deliverables |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **AutoVibeIdea** | A research direction and constraints | Literature landscape, ranked candidates and proposal draft |
| **AutonomousMath** | A mathematical question | Proof attempts, LaTeX/PDF manuscript, version-bound reviews and checkpoints |
| **AutoRebuttal** | A paper and reviewer comments | Evidence-linked replies, AC comment and unresolved-concern ledger |
Use each module independently, with its own workspace. File handoffs between modules are currently manual.
## Results and evidence
**AutonomousMath** · **64** attempts · **28** completed manuscripts · **15** selected-best historical passes.
### Manuscript revision
Current-version passes increased **3 → 12** across three revision rounds on the same 28 completed manuscripts.
### Strategy evolution
In the selected G3 comparison, research calls per historical pass decreased **20.50 → 9.67 (−52.8%)**.
“Pass” means at least one Accept among three historical model-assessor sessions. The G3 comparison uses four unpaired attempts per strategy, with self-selected targets; counts cover partial machine work. Human-time savings remain unmeasured. Report → · Source data →
 Full evaluation protocol · A recorded idea decision 
The 28-manuscript revision comparison is conditional on completed writing and excludes unwritten attempts. Current-version passes and selected-best passes use different retention rules. The comparison does not isolate the effect of feedback from re-assessment.
The G3 batch was selected retrospectively: the selected strategy passed 3/4 attempts versus the baseline's 2/4. A stricter retained-vote diagnostic gives 1/4 for both. Invocation counts are partial work proxies, not total API cost, elapsed time or active human time. These historical model judgments do not establish conference acceptance. The current portable engine uses a different terminal review gate. Full protocol →
In one released AutoVibeIdea trace, deeper retrieval found close prior work, lowered a candidate's novelty score **8/10 → 4/10**, and changed its recommendation to **ABANDON**. Public excerpts omit full proposals and identifying technical details. This is one historical model judgment, no