Paper Compare

Compare academic papers side-by-side with structured tables and detailed narrative analysis.

---

The Paper Comparison Reasoning Framework

CODEBLOCK0

---

Decision Tree: Input Processing

CODEBLOCK1

---

Decision Tree: Comparison Angle

CODEBLOCK2

Self-Check: After Identifying Angle

• - [ ] Does my analysis focus on the right aspects?
• [ ] Will this help the user make a decision?

---

Step 1: Interpret the Request

What to Clarify

Question	Why It Matters
Which papers?	Need exact references
What goal?

Learning? Research? Writing? | | What comparison angle? | Focus analysis appropriately |

Self-Check: Before Starting

• - [ ] Do I have all paper references?
• [ ] Do I understand what user wants to learn?
• [ ] Is the number of papers appropriate (1-5)?
• [ ] What's the comparison angle?

---

Step 2: Retrieve Papers

Retrieval Strategy

Input Type	Method	Source
DOI	API	crossref, semantic scholar
URL

web_fetch | arXiv, IEEE, PubMed | | Search | websearch → webfetch | Find, then confirm | | PDF | pdf skill | Extract text | | History | memory_search | Prior comparisons |

Quality Priority

CODEBLOCK3

Citation Count

Use Semantic Scholar API:
CODEBLOCK4

Self-Check: After Retrieval

• - [ ] Did I get the abstract?
• [ ] Can I determine the methodology?
• [ ] Are there any papers with missing critical info?
• [ ] Did I get citation counts?

---

Step 3: Analyze (10 Dimensions)

Core Dimensions (Always Include)

#	Dimension	What to Extract
1	Title	Full title
2

Authors | All authors, first author highlighted | | 3 | Year | Publication year | | 4 | Venue | Journal/Conference | | 5 | Research Question | What problem do they solve? | | 6 | Methodology | Approach, techniques used | | 7 | Dataset | What data did they use? | | 8 | Results | Key findings with numbers | | 9 | Limitations | What do they acknowledge? | | 10 | Code & Data | Links to artifacts? |

Decision: What If Missing?

CODEBLOCK5

---

Step 4: Synthesize

Quality Scoring

Evaluate each paper:

Factor	Score	Notes
Venue Quality
- Top-tier (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, Nature, Science)

⭐⭐⭐ | |
| - Good (AAAI, IJCAI, CVPR, EMNLP, IEEE) | ⭐⭐ | |
| - Other | ⭐ | |
| Citations | | |
| - 100+ | ⭐⭐⭐ | Highly cited |
| - 10-100 | ⭐⭐ | Well-known |
| - <10 | ⭐ | Recent or niche |
| Code Available | | |
| - Yes, official | ⭐⭐⭐ | |
| - Yes, community | ⭐⭐ | |
| - No | ⭐ | |
| Data Available | | |
| - Yes | ⭐⭐⭐ | |
| - No | ⭐ | |

Overall Quality: Sum stars (higher = more established)

Comparison Table Structure

CODEBLOCK6

Narrative Synthesis Template

Structure:

## Overview
[What problem each paper addresses - high-level]
[Comparison angle: what are we comparing?]

## Methodology Comparison
[Compare techniques - are they compression-based? architecture-based?
 What's the key algorithmic difference?
 How does the comparison angle affect this?]

## Results Analysis
[Quantitative results - specific numbers, metrics
 Performance comparison - trade-offs mentioned
 Which paper wins on what?]

## Limitations
[What each paper acknowledges - be honest about gaps]
[What's NOT covered that might matter]

## Research Gaps
[What's MISSING across ALL papers]
[What's not yet explored]
[Potential future directions]

## Quality Assessment
[Paper A: ⭐⭐⭐ - Why]
[Paper B: ⭐⭐ - Why]
[Note any concerns]

---

Step 5: Structured Verdict

Decision Matrix

Decision Matrix

CODEBLOCK8

Final Recommendation

CODEBLOCK9

Self-Check: Before Delivering

• - [ ] Did I answer the user's original question?
• [ ] Did I identify the comparison angle?
• [ ] Are all 10 dimensions covered?
• [ ] Is quality scored?
• [ ] Is verdict actionable?

---

Step 6: Validate & Deliver

For Single Paper (1 only)

Output:
CODEBLOCK10

For Comparison (2-5 papers)

Deliver:

1. 1. Comparison Angle — What we're comparing and why
2. Comparison Table — All 10 dimensions + quality
3. Narrative Summary — 6-section synthesis
4. Quality Assessment — Scored factors
5. Structured Verdict — Decision matrix + recommendation

Edge Cases to Note

Situation	How to Handle
Different fields	Warn: "Comparing CS vs Biology papers"
Very different years

Note: "2010 vs 2024 — comparison may be unfair" | | Preprint | Note: "Preprint — not peer-reviewed" | | Conflicting results | Note: "Paper A claims X, Paper B claims Y" |

---

Error Handling

If Retrieval Fails

CODEBLOCK11

---

History (Persistence)

Save After Comparison

CODEBLOCK12

Load History

• - Read memory/paper-compare-history.json if exists
• Use memory_search to find prior comparisons

---

Dependencies

Skill	Use For
pdf	Extract text from uploaded PDFs
web_search

Find papers by query | | web_fetch | Get paper content from URLs |

---

Quick Reference

Input	Action
1 DOI	Single summary
2 DOIs

Full comparison | | arXiv URL | Fetch abstract | | "search for X" | Search → confirm → proceed | | Upload PDF | Extract → analyze |

---

Summary Checklist

• - [ ] Identify comparison angle
• [ ] Retrieve all papers (metadata + abstract)
• [ ] Extract 10 dimensions
• [ ] Score quality (venue, citations, code, data)
• [ ] Build comparison table
• [ ] Write narrative summary
• [ ] Create structured verdict
• [ ] Save to history

---

Notes

• - Always confirm before proceeding with search results
• Keep comparisons focused: 2-5 papers max
• Don't infer missing information — state "Not specified"
• Save to history for future reference
• Quality scoring helps users make informed decisions