Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Launch HN: Undermind (YC S24) – AI agent for discovering scientific papers
283 points by jramette 1 day ago | hide | past | favorite | 120 comments
Hey HN! We’re Josh and Tom from Undermind (https://www.undermind.ai/). We’re building a search engine for complex scientific research. There's a demo video at https://www.loom.com/share/10067c49e4424b949a4b8c9fd8f3b12c?..., as well as example search results on our homepage.

We’re both physicists, and one of our biggest frustrations during grad school was finding research — There were a lot of times when we had to sit down to scope out new ideas for a project and quickly become a deep expert, or we had to find solutions to really complex technical problems, but the only way to do that was manually dig through papers on Google Scholar for hours. It was very tedious, to the point where we would often just skip the careful research and hope for the best. Sometimes you’d get burned a few months later because someone already solved the problem you thought was novel and important, or you’d waste your time inventing/building a solution for something when one already existed.

The problem was there’s just no easy way to figure out what others have done in research, and load it into your brain. It’s one of the biggest bottlenecks for doing truly good, important research.

We wanted to fix that. LLMs clearly help, but are mostly limited to general knowledge. Instead, we needed something that would pull in research papers, and give you exactly what you need to know, even for very complex ideas and topics. We realized the way to do this is to mimic the research strategies we already know work, because we do them ourselves, and so we built an agent-like LLM pipeline to carefully search in a way that mimics human research strategies.

Our search system works a bit differently from casual search engines. First, we have you chat back and forth with an LLM to make sure we actually understand your really complex research goals up front, like you’re talking to a colleague. Then the system carefully searches for you for ~3 minutes. At a high level, it does something similar to tree search, following citation rabbit holes and adapting based on what it discovers to look for more content over multiple iterations (the same way you would if you decided to spend a few hours). The 3 minute delay is annoying, but we’re optimizing for quality of results rather than latency right now. At the end there’s a report.

We’re trying to achieve two things with this careful, systematic agent-like discovery process:

1. We want to be very accurate, and only recommend very specific results if you ask for a specific topic. To do this, we carefully read and evaluate content from papers with the highest quality LLMs (we’re just reading abstracts and citations for now, because they’re more widely accessible - but also working on adding full texts).

2. We want to find everything relevant to your search, because in research it’s crucial to know if something exists or not. The key to being exhaustive is the adaptive algorithms we’ve developed (following citations, changing strategy based on what we find, etc). However, one cool feature of the automated pipeline is we can track the discovery process as the search proceeds. Early on, we find many good results, and later on they get more sparse, until all the good leads are exhausted and we stop finding anything helpful. We can statistically model that process, and figure out when we’ve found everything (it actually has an interesting exponential saturation behavior, which you can read a bit more about in our whitepaper (https://www.undermind.ai/static/Undermind_whitepaper.pdf), which we wrote for a previous prototype.)

You can try searching yourself here: https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/promotion/. This is a special HN link where, for today, we’ve dropped the signup gate for your first few searches. Usually we require login so you can save searches.

We’re excited to share this with you! We’d love to hear about your experiences searching, what’s clear or not, and any feedback. We’ll be here to answer any questions or comments.






I'm a CS academic who _should_ be working on finalizing a new submission, so when I saw this on HN I decided to give it a try and see if it could find anything in the literature that I'd missed. Somewhat to my surprise, it did - the top 10 results contained two items that I really ought to have found myself (they're from my own community!), but that I'd missed. There were also some irrelevant results mixed in (and lots of things I was already aware of), but overall I'm very impressed with this and will try it out again in the future. Nice work :)

I've just tried it and it looks good. Will probably sign up.

If you can get this to work for patent searches across multiple languages, you'd really have a killer product. Patent searches, via an attorney, cost thousands of dollars each and are nevertheless frequently imperfect. (I had a patent denied because somewhere, in a throwaway paragraph buried in the 100-page description of an entirely different invention, something similar was briefly mentioned and never referred to again.)

I'd gladly pay $100/month for "Deep Patent Search," and more than that if it's really good.


I tried this with a question for an area I know well. It's pretty impressive but missed some key references.

I'd love to see limitations like this quantified and clearly flagged. Otherwise there's a danger that people may the assume results are definitive, and this could have the opposite outcome to that intended (much time spent working on something only to disocver it's been done already).


Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the tool; in cases where you care about getting everything, make sure to take a look at the estimated percent of papers found at the bottom of the summary section. That gives you a sense of how complete the set of references likely are. We've tuned it to get around half of the total papers for the "median" user query on a first pass. If users desire, they can "extend" the search to have Undermind look for more papers. Additional caveat to remember with the current system is that it only accesses abstracts, so if you'd need to look in the full text to know a work is relevant, we wouldn't be able to catch it.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't appreciate that it only searches abstracts. That might explain some of the missing references. Anyway, great work, will look forward to using it more.

Yep, will add in full texts as we can in the future. Let me know if the percent of papers found as an indication of an exhaustiveness measure was clear? Reach out to us at [email protected] if you'd be willing to provide more feedback on your experience.

Awesome! I just took you up on your offer and compared roughly similar questions using Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Undermind.

Claude 3.5 is reluctant to provide references—-although it will if coaxed by prompting.

Undermind solves this particular problem. A great complement for my research question —- the evidence that brain volume is reduced as a function of age in healthy cognitively normal humans. In mice we see a steady slow increase that averages out to a gain of 5% between the human equivalents of 20 to 65 years of age. This increase is almost linear as a function of log of age.

Here is the question that was refined with Undermind’s help:

>I want to find studies on adult humans (ages 20-100+) that have used true longitudinal repeated measures designs to study variations in brain volume over several years, focusing on individuals who are relatively healthy and cognitively functional.

I received 100 ranked and lightly annotated set of 100 citations in this format:

>[1] Characterization of Brain Volume Changes in Aging Individuals With Normal Cognition Using Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging S. Fujita, ..., and O. Abe JAMA Network Open 2023 - 21 citations - Show abstract - Cite - PDF 99.6% topic match Provides longitudinal data on brain volume changes in aging individuals with normal cognition. Analyzes annual MRI data from 653 adults over 10 years to observe brain volume trajectories. Excludes populations with neurodegenerative diseases; employs true longitudinal design with robust MRI techniques.


It's worth highlighting that first result is exactly what you asked for, given all 4 of your criteria:

1. It's on adults.

2. It's longitudinal over multiple years.

3. It studies variations in brain volume.

4. It focuses on healthy individuals.

You can see the full results for that search text here: https://undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/e1a3805d35...


And that first hit in JAMA Open is a fabulous paper. Ten or mire yearly MRI scans for 650 subjects.

Great product!

One thing I'd improve is how it asks followup questions.

For example, I asked "What are the best types of videogames that improve cognition?"

The followup response was

```

Are you specifically looking for studies that focus on cognitive improvements as measured by standardized tests, or are you more interested in everyday functional improvements observed in real-world settings?

Could you be more precise about which cognitive domains you're interested in? For example, are you focusing on memory, problem-solving, attention, or something else? Additionally, are you looking for papers that compare different genres of videogames (e.g., action, puzzle, strategy) or studies targeting specific age groups or populations (e.g., children, older adults)?

Lastly, are you interested in experimental studies where the cognitive benefits were directly measured pre- and post-intervention, or are observational studies that report correlations between videogame use and cognitive performance also of interest to you? Understanding this will help determine the type of articles we should prioritize in the search.

```

It would be great if it turned those into multiple choice. For example:

```

Could you be more precise about which cognitive domains you're interested in?

[] memory

[] problem-solving

[] attention

[] something else (please specify)

```

Would save a ton of time having to reply/ reread everything.


"manually dig through papers on Google Scholar for hours."

Is exactly how you gain expertise in a field and/or find those subtle gaps in knowledge that are the seeds of real breakthrough


I think we associate learning/discovery with those moments because they happen together, not because they're causally related.

I think this is somewhat equivalent to how we used to have to learn 100 different integrals and derivatives in calculus. That's somewhat helpful. I learned to see patterns in math like that, the same way I learned a decent bit by browsing irrelevant abstracts and follow citation trails. But physically memorizing 100s of integrals is mostly a waste, and so are the irrelevant abstracts. You'll be much better at math (and hopefully science) if you can learn ~10 key integrals or read ~10 abstracts, and then spend the rest of your time understanding the high level patterns and implications by talking with an expert. Just like I can now ask GPT-4 to explain why some integral formula is true, which ones are related, and so on.

And that's the last point - these literature search tools aren't developing in isolation. We will get to have a local "expert" to discuss what we find with. That changes the cost-benefit analysis too.


> "manually dig through papers on Google Scholar for hours."

The old dinosaurs on HN are snickering about the word "manual" here, having blown days pawing through the library stacks.


but the actual manually digging is not - reading the paper is, and the faster you can get some 10-20 papers, the better off you are

Reading papers that turn out to be irrelevant to the specific problem at hand is probably the biggest time sink; it's also probably an important source of general education. But good academics presumably know the importance of keeping an open mind and general learning.

If someone is at the level where they need 10-20 papers to understand a topic, they are not at the level where they are even capable of asking a specific enough question. In their case, doing the hard work and sifting though 100s of papers is the best way to train themselves to think critically and thoroughly evaluate whether a paper is relevant to them.

There is also the real fact that the greatest discoveries usually come from obscure corners and reading as much as you can is the only way to explore those corners. Otherwise, you're just refining what was done before you


I have no idea how old you are, but being in my 40s and needing to get results quickly I don't really care to learn the minutia for whatever type of stamp collecting is important for the project I'm working on now.

I have only tried one search, but so far it's impressive. I have been using elicit.com, but they seem to be taking a different approach that is less AI-heavy. I would definitely give this a shot for a few months.

We're trying to bias the system toward more autonomous execution, rather than a "copilot"-like experience where you iterate back and forth with the system. That lets us run more useful subroutines in parallel in the backend, as long as you specified your complex goal clearly.

Here is an open source tool for summarizing Arxiv papers: https://summarizepaper.com/

Also very curious to see how this compares to: https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Obligatory EmergentMind reference: https://www.emergentmind.com

Hadn't seen that. Very complementary. We don't address staying up to date or pull in community value metrics (other than total citations). It's a somewhat different goal to broadly gather emerging ideas and stay informed.

Ok, tried searching something incredibly niche, and it came up with results that no search I'd tried through conventional methods could.

There's a 50/50 false positive rate, but I can deal with that. It means looking at 10 papers to find 5 useful ones instead of looking at 1000 papers to also find 5 useful ones.

I'm impressed.


I really, really wish you would use a different citation format.

Arbitrary numbers are really the least information. At least use last names and years, so I can have some idea which paper you are talking about without scrolling back and forth.


Thanks! That's helpful to hear. Honestly just did numbers because the LLM has no trouble remembering which is which, and it's easier to programmatically parse out the citations to build hyperlinks (compared to names/years, where little variations creep in).

It could be a rendering thing rather than llm output. Output a number, pull the name/year when creating the page.

Very happy subscriber here, thank you for the tool. I do a lot of searching with it, however due to some changes in my life in the near future I will not need it as much so I wont be willing to spend $20 a month on it. So my question is, would you consider adding an option where one could pay per query rather than just per monthly subscription? I would love to use it for the occasional spark of curiosity when I want to know more about a certain topic without having to familiarise myself with the academic field surrounding it. Having a way for using undermind for situations like that would be truly amazing! Would gladly pay 1-2 or maybe even 3 dollars per extended query.

We've thought quite a bit about usage-based pricing, but found that doesn't work psychologically for most people. Generally, people seem happier by paying up front for access, then feel good about having the system available whenever they need it, rather then having to think through cost tradeoffs every time they want to do a search or use up credits. Please do reach out at [email protected] though, we'd love to talk about a solution for you and get your feedback.

Have you considered the middle ground where there's a $10 tier ratelimited to X requests per timeperiod?

Not a bad idea. Want to avoid too much complexity in pricing, though. Decision fatigue.

Something like this was the first thing that came to my mind when chat gpt and their ilk started showing up. The amount of knowledge in so many fields is so vast that it is impossible for any one or even a group people to access and utilise properly. Serendipity is still needed for many things LLM will make it occur more regularly

If it's easy/fast to check the literature, hopefully people's instinct changes. If we had time, we should be doing that for any small idea.

I love the concept and loved the results I got. I tried it out and found a lot of papers both from my lab group and ones related that I had missed. I'd happily pay for it but as a grad student the price is a little steep - would it be possible to make a student tier?

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.


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?

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?

Absolutely phenomenal quality. Subscribed to the pro plan! Please add an option to use Claude as I absolutely prefer it to GPT4 and it's probably cheaper too.

This looks really cool! I'm sure I'll be adding this to my toolkit. And I swear by SciSpace Copilot https://typeset.io/ which I've been using for more than a year. It saves my reading time and summarizes the paper extremely well, helps me decode complex topics, automates the literature review, and extracts key findings of the paper within minutes.

I did a search on an obscure topic I like and got impressively well informed results, so hats off to you. If this isn't an awkward question, how does one avoid running afoul of Google's rules against crawling when implementing a service like this? If someone were to post a link to a report obtained through your service on a blog or something, would that be a good thing in your view or more like piracy?

That's awesome! We're just putting publicly available information (abstracts aggregated by the nonprofit Semantic Scholar) through a smarter and better search process, so there's no issues with Google. And we absolutely encourage sharing, people post our search reports and send them to colleagues all the time, so please go ahead on that front.

It would be impressive if the pricing were based on the country's income level.

Very impressed. I am not a scientist but am building a product for intent-based discounting in Shopify. Typically Google scholar gives me very generic results using LSTM etc however this search gave me some interesting results with focus on real world implementation. The clarifying questions are also quite impressive as it gives the impression that it is understanding the query really well. Good stuff. I think it might be useful for end-users and not just company/research folks as well

I was looking for a way to save the result page locally (ie offline). Maybe I need more coffee, but it did not look possible. So I'd add the ability to save the result (or at least make the button prominent).

But the fact I wanted to save a result is a good sign. Nice work!


Just save the report url! It will persist.

Also, on the usual system if you're logged in (instead of the HN free link), all your searches automatically get saved on a "history" page.


I did see that, and maybe I should expand my comment. From the perspective of someone doing long-term research: Undermind is a startup and is subject to the vagaries of VC funding. Currently, AI is in fashion among VCs, but my guess is that the fashion will be shorter lasting than the usefulness of the search results. So having tried out the product and finding a nice literature list in a relatively new area for me, my first instinct was to store it among my org files because the probability that your company will disappear (or severely degraded upon acquisition) is high.

Anyway, I do not mean to detract from the accomplishment -- and I liked the product! So I hope you take the above feedback/nitpicking in the spirit it is intended.


That makes sense. You should be able to right click - save as PDF and it will preserve the links, etc.

Ref to prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(academic_company)

One anecdote that I heard from the team developing it: turned out that researchers more readily sourced material from their social networks, notably twitter at the time. Meta's search functionality didn't receive enough traffic and eventually was shut down.

Perhaps LLMs will make the search capability more compelling. I guess we'll see.


> We’re both physicists, and one of our biggest frustrations during grad school was finding research

You should have seen what it used to be like a few decades ago :)


Agreed, it used to be even harder. But on the other hand, there were also way less papers back then to have to sift through :)

Curious as to what it's doing under the hood, the query to return the results takes an excruciatingly long time... are you searching remote sources vs a local index?

this was the search <https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/cba773...> if you need a reference too it, ie bugs or performance monitoring...


The few minute time delay is primarily because of the sequential LLM processing steps by high quality LLMs, not database access times. The system reads and generates paragraphs about papers, then compares them, and we have to use the highest quality LLMs, so token generation times are perceptible. We repeat many times for accuracy. We find it's impossible to be accurate without GPT-4 level models and the delay.

I’m a marketer rather than a scientist but this proved very useful in helping me find research that’s applicable to my field of work (crm marketing). Nothing particularly new was surfaced but I suppose I wasn’t expecting it to either http://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/7140cc6...

Been using Undermind for several months now and it's honestly been a lifesaver in getting a comprehensive understanding of a research topic.

Tried it. It would save me a lot of time, I would say!

One suggestion: The back-and-forth chat in the beginning could be improved with a more extensive interaction. So, the final prompt could be more fine-grained into a specific area/context/anything one would aim for.


Can you be more specific? Like break it out into AND and OR statements? Or just more iteration back and forth? We find people more familiar with the system learn better strategies than the LLM can suggest.

I'll write the obligatory comment about doing literature searches in the 90s, which involved trudging to the physics library, the chemistry library, and the engineering library in search of dead tree copies of the journal articles you're after. Also: skimming each paper quickly after you photocopy it, to see if it references any other papers you should grab while you're at the library.

This is really cool! Both of my parents are cell biologists, and I've done some time in labs as well, so a lot of paper exploring and reading in the family. "Review" articles are a good index but something more on-demand makes a lot of sense, I can definitely see this being extremely useful.

"Please use a valid institutional or company email address."

This is obnoxious. Please remove this unnecessary roadblock.


We removed the signup requirement for HN today - try this link: https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/promotion/

Just in case you needed a theme song for your future ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTnMvULdcB4

Love it.

How is this different than the work that semantic scholar is doing around AI?

Semantic Scholar seems more focused on 1. being the data provider/aggregator for the research community, and 2. long term, I think they plan to develop software at the reading interface that learns as a researcher uses it to browse papers (a rich PDF reader, with hyperlinks, TLDRs, citation contexts, and a way to track your interactions over time, and remind you of what you've seen or not).

Their core feature now is a fast keyword search engine, but they also have a few advanced search features through their API (https://api.semanticscholar.org/api-docs/) like recommendations from positive/negative examples, but neither KW search nor these other systems are currently high enough quality to be very useful for us.

FYI our core dataset for now is provided by Semantic Scholar, so hugely thankful for their data aggregation pipeline and open access/API.


Do you plan on adding an API? I already have an inhouse knowledge discovery, annotation and search system that could be augmented by your service. Not super critical at this point, but a would be nice.

And yes, Semantic Scholar is a wonderful part of the academic commons. Fingers crossed they don't go down the jstor/oclc path.


I've used undermind for literature search and it was very precise! Thanks for the product! I wonder how you plan to extend the search to full paper content (will Semantic Scholar api allow this) - and do you plan to connect more datasets (which ones)? (many of them are paid...)

We'll certainly be able to include open access full texts, which is already a substantial fraction of the published papers, and a growing fraction too, as the publishing industry is rapidly moving toward open access. Paywalled full text search would require working with the publishers, which is more involved.

Great! I can definitely ask undermind for an overview paper of the scientific information landscape, unless you have a favourite in quick access to share?

quite impressive! This is really more like what I was hoping Elicit would be.

Are you breakdown the question into subtopics, doing a broad search and then doing some sort of dim reduction -> topical clustering to get it in the format?


This is really cool, excited to see where this goes!

Hi Josh and Tom, thank you for the post.

Are there any plans on releasing any sort of API integration? I work in Technology Transfer consultancy for research institutes in Europe, and often we have to do manual evaluation of publications for novelty check and similar developments. Since most of the projects we work on were developed by leading researchers in academic institutions, it is important for us to quickly assess if a certain topic has been studied already.

Currently, one of my company's internal projects is a LLM-powered software to automate much of the manual search, together with other features related to the industry.

I think it be very beneficial for us to implement academic papers search function, but for that an API system would be required.

Great work nonetheless, good luck on the journey


We'd love to talk and see if we can provide this. Seems like it would be really helpful. Can you email us ([email protected])?

Pretty good, it found some useful references I missed in Google Scholar and Arxiv. Looks promising, will use it more.

How would you compare your product to elicit.ai?

In my opinion elicit has better looking UI and much more features and further along


I think the biggest difference is our focus on search quality, and being willing to spend a lot on compute to do it, while they focus on systematic extraction of data from existing sources and on being fast. It's a bit of an oversimplification (they of course have search, and we also have extraction).

Feature-wise, we definitely have a lot of work to do :) What crucial pieces do you think we're missing?


From what I understand, that’s not the case. They are working on both. I’d be concerned about how you can differentiate and compete with them. They have a big head start

In my experience, elicit’s big weakness is accuracy.

This is a nice search rngine. I found it to be more effective than crawling with google scholar. Good work guys!

How is this different from Scite, Elicit, Consensus, and Scopus AI for Generating Literature Reviews

Ours is slow, but accurate, even for complex topics. The rest are fast, but generally can't handle complex topics. (There's more nuanced explanations in other comments)

would this be able to find the latest articles on a given topic?

let’s say i am interested in coffee and i’d like to get new research papers on it. would this work?


In short, yes, though it's geared toward topic search.

From a strategy perspective, we designed it for topic search because it makes more sense to find everything on a topic first, then filter for the most recent, if recent is what you want. That's because there is a lot of useful information in older articles (citation connections, what people discuss, and how), and gathering all that helps uncover the most relevant results. Conversely if you only ever filtered on articles in the last year, you might discover a few things, but you wouldn't have as much information to adapt to help the search work better.

So, you can ask for articles on coffee (though ideally it should be something a bit more specific, or there will be thousands of results). Our system will carefully find all articles, then you can filter for 2024 articles or look at the timeline.


Any idea how i can use your tool for a vs code extension

OK, I'm both impressed and disappointed.

I did 2 searches.

First I asked about a very specific niche thing. I gave me results but none I wanted. It looked like I missed a crucial piece of information.

So I did the second search. I started with the final request it written for the previous search and added the information I though I missed. It gave me virtually the same results with a little sprinkle of what I was actually after.

A few observations:

1. I'm not sure but it seems like it relies too much on citation count. Or maybe citations in papers make it think that the paper is absolutely a must read. I specifically said I'm not interested in what's in that paper and I still got those results.

2. I don't see much dissertations/theses in the result. I know for sure that there a good results for my request in a few dissertations. None of them are in the results.

That said, while I didn't get exactly what I want I've found a few interesting papers even if they're tangential to the actual request.


A few possibilities: - We only use abstracts for now. Have to make sure you ask for something present there. - Did you ask for a scientific topic? (Sometimes people ask for papers by a specific author, journal, etc. The system isn't engineered to efficiently find that).

Regarding citations: we use them, but only for figuring out which papers to look at next in the iterative discovery process, not for choosing what to rank higher or lower at the end (unless you explicitly ask for citations). It's ranking based on topic match.

If you're comfortable, posting the report URLs here can let us debug.


I've been using https://exa.ai for this. It doesn't do any advanced agent stuff like here, but it's way better than Google, especially if you're not quite sure what you're looking for.

Agreed, exa is great - particularly, it's the best thing I've found for fast web retrieval of slightly more complex topics than Perplexity, Google, etc can handle.

Are you planning to offer a search API at some point?

Potentially. Given the latency and the cost/compute we put into each result, it doesn't fit the usual API mechanics.

What use case are you thinking of?


This looks cool!

Independent researcher without academic address; can't get in. Best of luck.

You should be able to try it here without loggin in: https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/promotion/ (set up for HN today). If not message [email protected] and I'll set you up.

can you fix it so anyone can get it, that sounds like a waste of time to block people.

Same. This is me: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eQ1uJ6UAAAAJ&hl=es

And post.harvard.edu has been sunsetted for alums, so I don't have that email either.


Is this magic?

Ycombinator has really fallen off

why?

This works well. Well done. There was a similar product on HN a few weeks ago and it mostly failed on my favourite topics. Undermind returned all the papers I would expect. The ordering of the results could be improved since in the case I tested, it does not reflect well the relative importance of the papers. I think it may give too much weight to direct similarity to the search query, which could sometimes be an advantage.

I’ve been using a similar platform that I really like called Answer This[1]. I’ll have to check out yours as well and see how it compares.

1. https://answerthis.io/


I ran these two example searches we have on our homepage on AnswerThis: (3D ion shuttling) https://undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/b3767fb7b6... (laser cooling to BEC) https://undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/c5f77f862a...

The results from their website aren't sharable, but their lists of references do not seem relevant (ie. they miss the fact that shuttling needs to be in 3D, and the list of experiments for laser cooling to BEC is missing all of the relevant papers).

I think, like other research tools, they're more focused on the summarization/extraction of information, rather than the discovery process (though they are similar to us in the way they say they do multi-stage retrieval and it takes some time).


AnswerThis founder here. Hang on tight, our next few updates will be instrumental in conversational feedback-based paper searches.

I love all the work that's being done in the field.

Can't wait for science to be faster.


Could not try it. Saying valid institutional or company email address.

It doesn’t recognize my university.


Impressive result. I will visit again

Congratulations for an LLM that doesn't give me BS. I'm sending links to colleagues and most probably subscribe myself

So does this undermine academics? the research industry? the academic publishing industry? Who exactly is being "undermined" by this AI product?

With the current attitudes to AI, the name feels a little tone deaf being so easily mistaken for AI undermining people.


Emphasis is meant to be on "mind", like supporting better reasoning, but point taken.

Yeah I get it, but if someone said "check out undermind", I could easily hear it as "check out undermined", as they are pronounced identically for most English language speakers.

undermind

"being so easily mistaken"

is there a way to configure sources used for research? what about ability to search through paywalled journals?

Not at the moment -- we're currently searching the abstracts of most major journals (which are public even for paywalled papers) which have been compiled in the Semantic Scholar database (https://www.semanticscholar.org/about/publishers).

what are your biggest drawbacks?

Latency, compute required, and lack of full texts (paywalled publisher content).

Very cool, and very relevant to my life -- I am currently writing a meta-analysis and finishing my literature search.

I gave it a version of my question, it asked me reasonable follow-ups, and we refined the search to:

> I want to find randomized controlled trials published by December 2023, investigating interventions to reduce consumption of meat and animal products with control groups receiving no treatment, measuring direct consumption (self-reported outcomes are acceptable), with at least 25 subjects in treatment and control groups (or at least 10 clusters for cluster-assigned studies), and with outcomes measured at least one day after treatment begins.

I just got the results back: https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/e5d964....

It certainly didn't find everything in my dataset, but:

* the first result is in the dataset.

* The second one is a study I excluded for something buried deep in the text.

* The third is in our dataset.

* The fourth is excluded for something the machine should have caught (32 subjects in total), but perhaps I needed to clarify 25 subjects in treatment and control each.

* The fifth result is a protocol for the study in result 3, so a more sophisticated search would have identified that these were related.

* The sixth study was entirely new to me, and though it didn't qualify because of the way the control group received some aspect of treatment, it's still something that my existing search processes missed, so right away I see real value.

So, overall, I am impressed, and I can easily imagine my lab paying for this. It would have to advance substantially before it was my only search method for a meta-analysis -- it seems to have missed a lot of the gray literature, particularly those studies published on animal advocacy websites -- but that's a much higher bar than I need for it to be part of my research toolkit.


For a systematic review/meta analysis you’d be expected to document your search strategy, exclusion criteria, etc anyway wouldn’t you? That’d preclude using a tool like this other than as a sense check to see if you needed to add more keywords/expand your search criteria anyway.

My wife does that for her day job (in the U.K. national healthcare system) and the systematic reviews have to be super well documented and even pre-registered on a system called PROSPERO. The published papers always have the full search strategy at the end.


I was planning to say "I used an AI search tool" and cite undermind.ai in my methods section. I think that won't raise any eyebrows in the review process but we'll see.

For a meta-analysis, you might want to try the "extend" feature. It sends the agent to gather more papers (we only analyze 100 carefully initially), so if your report might say "only 55% discovered", could be useful.

(Also, if you want, you can share your report URL here, others will be able to take a look.)


Thanks, I added my URL

I only have some experience writing normal papers, so just out of interest, could you elaborate what your usual search routine for a meta-analysis is?

There's a whole established process for this, see here for a textbook chapter https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04

However, because I'm writing a methods-focused review -- we only look at RCTs meeting certain (pretty minimal) criteria relating to statistical power and measurement validity -- what I'm doing is closer to a combination of review of previous reviews (there have been dozens in my field) and a snowball search (searching bibliographies of papers that are relevant). I also consulted with experts in the field. however, finding bachelor's theses has been challenging, but many are actually relevant, so undermind was helpful there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: