The ArXiv Problem

(And My Attempt at a Solution)

You know that feeling when you open arXiv on Monday morning and there are 47 new ML papers? Then you bookmark 12 of them with the best intentions, add them to your "weekend reading" list, and... well, we all know how that story ends.

I've been quieter on GonzoML lately because I've been wrestling with exactly this problem. As someone who genuinely enjoys diving deep into papers, I was getting frustrated by my own limitations. There are so many interesting papers I want to review, but manual deep-dives take hours each. Meanwhile, the automated summaries out there are either too shallow or full of hallucinations.

So I built something for myself—and figured others might find it useful too.

Introducing ArXivIQ

ArXivIQ is my attempt at finding the sweet spot between human curation and AI efficiency. Here's the honest truth about what it is and isn't:

What it is:

• Hand-picked papers (still me doing the selection)

• Multi-agent AI pipeline that produces structured deep-dives

• Aimed at 15-minute reads instead of 2-hour paper sessions

• A way for me to cover more ground without sacrificing depth entirely

What it isn't:

• A replacement for reading papers yourself when they really matter

• Perfect (the AI still occasionally gets things wrong, which is why I spot-check everything)

• A magic solution to research FOMO (that's probably unsolvable)

The Technical Approach

The core is a multi-agent system I call … (have no idea yet). Different agents handle different aspects, e.g.:

• One extracts key technical details

• Another plays skeptic and hunts for methodological issues

• A third synthesizes everything into a structured review

I've found this approach significantly reduces hallucinations compared to single-prompt solutions, though I still review everything before publishing.

Recent Examples

If you want to see what this looks like in practice, recent reviews include:

• AlphaEvolve: DeepMind's evolutionary coding agent that directly modifies codebases. I also did it manually here, so you can compare.

• Self-Adapting Language Models: A framework enabling LLMs to self-adapt by generating their own finetuning data and update directives, termed "self-edits."

• AlphaOne (α1): Training-free framework for controlling LLM reasoning speed

• Learning-Rate-Free Optimization: Testing whether "hyperparameter-free" deep learning actually works

Each review includes a TL;DR and a more detailed technical breakdown for subscribers.

How This Fits with GonzoML

Think of ArXivIQ as the broader net, GonzoML as the focused deep-dive. I'll continue doing manual reviews here for papers that really deserve the full treatment—the ones that make me go "wait, this changes everything" or "this is beautifully weird."

ArXivIQ handles the "this is solid and interesting but I don't have 4 hours to write about it" category. Still curated, still insightful, just more scalable.

The Real Problem

Let's be honest: the real problem isn't just the volume of papers. It's that we're all pretending we can keep up with everything when we can't. I'd rather be transparent about using AI as a research assistant than pretend I'm superhuman.

If you're tired of that growing pile of "papers to read someday," give ArXivIQ a try. The system is evolving—I'm constantly tweaking the agents and adding new features based on what actually works.

For existing GonzoML paid subscribers: Drop me a line and I'll set you up with a complimentary gift subscription to ArXivIQ.

What's your approach to staying current with the literature? Are you successfully reading everything, or are you drowning like the rest of us? I'm curious how others are tackling this problem.

---

Subscribe to ArXivIQ at arxiviq.substack.com for curated ML paper reviews that respect your time.