Chen, Qiaosheng, Huang, Kaijia, Zhou, Fanqi, Cheng, Gong · Oct 29, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: From Intent to Improvement: Agentic Dataset Search for Better Model Training
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors of this cs.AI paper propose AgenticDS, a framework for finding training datasets when a search request includes both a goal and requirements such as task, license, or training stage. They argue that ordinary text search may miss requirements, while free-form agents can select a dataset and declare it suitable without checking that those requirements are met. AgenticDS turns each language-model decision into a typed object, then uses deterministic code to carry out a search plan and check evidence before accepting a ranking. The authors report that it improves NDCG@10 on HuDS-Bench over the strongest dense–sparse hybrid and a commercial agent. In a controlled search-to-train study, they also report the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine among the datasets they compared. The distinction matters: a relevant search result is not necessarily a dataset that meets the request, and a better search ranking does not by itself show better model training. The authors’ controlled study offers evidence on training outcomes, but the abstract does not establish how those results carry over beyond the study. Would AgenticDS’s downstream accuracy advantage persist on other tasks and under different training conditions?
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T06:42:48.341Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-31T08:17:34.833Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The evidence provided is the paper abstract; it does not give details of the controlled search-to-train study or establish whether its results generalize to other tasks or training conditions. The authors describe and study results, but the abstract does not establish that improved search rankings will consistently produce better model training outcomes.
Open question
Would AgenticDS’s downstream accuracy advantage persist on other tasks and under different training conditions?
Source-stated
The authors say dataset search requests combine a semantic training goal with constraints, and that available dataset metadata often cannot verify those constraints.
A query couples a semantic training goal with constraints such as task, license, and training stage, and the metadata that would verify them are often missing.
Source-stated
The authors propose AgenticDS, which converts language-model decisions into typed objects and uses deterministic code to execute and verify the search.
every language model decision instantiates a typed object before deterministic code consumes it.
Source-stated
On HuDS-Bench, the authors report improved NDCG@10 compared with a dense–sparse hybrid and a commercial LLM agent.
AgenticDS improves NDCG@10 by 25.7\% over the strongest dense--sparse hybrid and by 18.9\% over a commercial LLM agent.
Source-stated
In a controlled search-to-train study, the authors report that retrieved datasets gave the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine.
A controlled search-to-train study further shows that the datasets it retrieves give the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine.
Source-stated
The authors distinguish search performance from training outcomes: they state that neither text retrieval nor free-form agents establish that returned data will improve training.
Neither approach establishes that the data it returns will improve model training.
Source and contributor context
Chen, Qiaosheng, Huang, Kaijia, Zhou, Fanqi, Cheng, Gong · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Agentic AI
AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: d73695bb-6947-43c1-8a7f-b0dc5595c960.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 9a5a093cbfcfc71d4b26c7e4d8fe2becb6250e16ce647704e53716cd2e93d857. Source text hash: 7d9b92ab5d2037fa4e5ca94be5c07f4961a9b20bce9d27e169d76e19b49e3ecf.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z
arXiv cs.AI: From Intent to Improvement: Agentic Dataset Search for Better Model Training
The authors of this cs.AI paper propose AgenticDS, a framework for finding training datasets when a search request includes both a goal and requirements such as task, license, or training stage. They argue that ordinary text search may miss requirements, while free-form agents can select a dataset and declare it suitable without checking that those requirements are met. AgenticDS turns each language-model decision into a typed object, then uses deterministic code to carry out a search plan and check evidence before accepting a ranking. The authors report that it improves NDCG@10 on HuDS-Bench over the strongest dense–sparse hybrid and a commercial agent. In a controlled search-to-train study, they also report the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine among the datasets they compared. The distinction matters: a relevant search result is not necessarily a dataset that meets the request, and a better search ranking does not by itself show better model training. The authors’ controlled study offers evidence on training outcomes, but the abstract does not establish how those results carry over beyond the study. Would AgenticDS’s downstream accuracy advantage persist on other tasks and under different training conditions?
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 29, 2026 (2026-10-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T06:42:48.341Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-31T08:17:34.833Z.
Limits
The evidence provided is the paper abstract; it does not give details of the controlled search-to-train study or establish whether its results generalize to other tasks or training conditions. The authors describe and study results, but the abstract does not establish that improved search rankings will consistently produce better model training outcomes.
Open question
Would AgenticDS’s downstream accuracy advantage persist on other tasks and under different training conditions?
Source-stated
The authors say dataset search requests combine a semantic training goal with constraints, and that available dataset metadata often cannot verify those constraints.
A query couples a semantic training goal with constraints such as task, license, and training stage, and the metadata that would verify them are often missing.
Source-stated
The authors propose AgenticDS, which converts language-model decisions into typed objects and uses deterministic code to execute and verify the search.
every language model decision instantiates a typed object before deterministic code consumes it.
Source-stated
On HuDS-Bench, the authors report improved NDCG@10 compared with a dense–sparse hybrid and a commercial LLM agent.
AgenticDS improves NDCG@10 by 25.7\% over the strongest dense--sparse hybrid and by 18.9\% over a commercial LLM agent.
Source-stated
In a controlled search-to-train study, the authors report that retrieved datasets gave the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine.
A controlled search-to-train study further shows that the datasets it retrieves give the best downstream accuracy in mathematics, code, and medicine.
Source-stated
The authors distinguish search performance from training outcomes: they state that neither text retrieval nor free-form agents establish that returned data will improve training.
Neither approach establishes that the data it returns will improve model training.
Source and contributor context
Chen, Qiaosheng, Huang, Kaijia, Zhou, Fanqi, Cheng, Gong · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Agentic AI
AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: d73695bb-6947-43c1-8a7f-b0dc5595c960.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 9a5a093cbfcfc71d4b26c7e4d8fe2becb6250e16ce647704e53716cd2e93d857. Source text hash: 7d9b92ab5d2037fa4e5ca94be5c07f4961a9b20bce9d27e169d76e19b49e3ecf.
uncertain · 2026-11-13T03:34:56.488Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: d73695bb-6947-43c1-8a7f-b0dc5595c960
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the proposal, the critique of existing approaches and all results to the paper's authors on arXiv cs.AI. Benchmark and downstream results are framed as what the authors report, not as established fact or EM's opinion.
Authors:Qiaosheng Chen, Kaijia Huang, Fanqi Zhou, Gong Cheng
summary — uncertain: The core argument is preserved: text relevance is not enough, and agents self-certify matches. But the reading omits that HuDS-Bench is a new benchmark introduced in this paper: 200 queries, with judgments pooled over 15 systems. That context matters when a lay reader weighs the NDCG@10 gains. NDCG@10 and 'dense–sparse hybrid' also appear without plain-language context, so readers depend on tooltips. Smallest repair: describe HuDS-Bench as the authors' new 200-query benchmark. Make sure NDCG@10, typed object and dense–sparse hybrid have term-library tooltips (NDCG@10 is a ranking-quality score for the top 10 results); add any that are missing.
On HuDS-Bench, a new benchmark of 200 queries with 24,908 graded judgments pooled over 15 systems
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-10-29 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of Oct 31 is correctly not used.
[Submitted on 29 Oct 2026]
support — pass: Every claim excerpt is verbatim and supports its claim. The significance paragraph only restates the authors' own distinction between search ranking and training improvement. The limitations correctly note that the abstract gives no study details, and the open question is properly conditional. The phrase 'among the datasets they compared' is a mild but reasonable framing of a controlled study. No invented benefits, costs or forecasts.
Neither approach establishes that the data it returns will improve model training.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference