Frustration with arXiv overload

[Demystifier]

I am frustrated with arXiv overload, more precisely, with daily following of new and replaced papers in gr-qc, hep-th and quant-ph. The problem is that the number of new and replaced papers each day is too big, much bigger than, say, ten years ago. It's hard to read carefully even all the titles, let alone abstracts. Of course, I am not interested in all these papers, but how to find new/replaced papers that interest me without reading the titles of all these papers? Do other physicists also complain about that problem? What do other physicists do?

 

[Borg]

I use a scheduled task in ChatGPT for some things like this. I'm mainly interested in new papers on AI memory architectures. I haven't told it which sites to review but that is easy enough to set. Once per week, I get an email notifying me of the latest results and a link to my ChatGPT conversation. The conversation then has the top five papers of interest that I asked for along with a summary of how and why each paper is relevant to my work.

 

[Demystifier]

Good idea, to ask AI to do the job instead of me. One only has to write a good prompt and repeat the same prompt each day.

 

[Demystifier]

Here is my prompt:
From the 3 links below, find up to 10 papers from each link which are the most relevant to the field of foundations of physics. Include the link to each of the papers.
https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/new
https://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new
https://arxiv.org/list/quant-ph/new

 

[Borg]

Good idea, to ask AI to do the job instead of me. One only has to write a good prompt and repeat the same prompt each day.

You don't have to write it every day. The OpenAI Plus account allows 5 automated, scheduled queries. They run on whatever schedule that you want (daily, weekly, etc.), using your instructions for what you're interested in. I also have it set up to email me but it doesn't put much in there other than telling me that it ran.

My prompt has awareness into the project that I've been working on so it really tries to focus on articles that can work in that architecture. The result is a list of papers by relevance with a brief summary of the paper and why it's relevant to my work.

 

[Borg]

Here is the OpenAI video where I learned about Scheduled Tasks - https://forum.openai.com/home/video...-openai-teams-use-codex-to-do-more-2026-07-14.

Scheduled chats are at the top of the menu on the left:

At 27:20, it shows how to set up a recurring Schedule for a task that the presenter had set up. I just went straight to here with my request and didn't need to set up anything in advance like the video.

Here's an example of the first item in my weekly report this week where I have it looking for papers on AI memory architectures for my software (VULCAN). Because my scheduled task conversation is in my Project directory along with all of the conversations related to my project, the scheduled task has very good insight into what I'm doing, what I'm looking for, and the state of my code.

VULCAN research brief — September 14–21, 2026​

This week is fairly concentrated: three papers look worth serious attention. I would not add weaker material simply to cover every category.

1. JustMem: Just-Enough Memory Access for Long-Term Conversations — September 17​

JustMem makes a useful distinction between two independent retrieval decisions: discovery breadth—how widely memory should be searched—and reading fidelity—whether compact distilled memory is sufficient or the original conversation must be recovered. It implements three modes: LOOKUP for localized evidence, COMPOSE for evidence distributed across memories, and REPLAY when original high-fidelity evidence is required. The authors report the highest mean accuracy and retrieval recall among their compared systems on LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S while using substantially fewer generative-model tokens.

Why it matters: This maps unusually well onto AKD's pyramid. VULCAN already possesses something analogous to multiple fidelity levels:

abstract → concepts → insights → original evidence.

The interesting implication is that retrieval need not simply choose which records to retrieve. It could also decide how far down the AKD pyramid it needs to descend. A broad analytical question may be answerable from abstracts/concepts; a precise factual claim may require insights or source material.

That potentially turns AKD's existing hierarchy into an explicit adaptive retrieval-fidelity mechanism, rather than treating all pyramid levels as interchangeable FAISS targets.

Read first: The formulation of discovery breadth versus reading fidelity and the rules distinguishing LOOKUP, COMPOSE, and REPLAY. I would compare those directly against VULCAN's abstract/concept/insight/source hierarchy. JustMem on arXiv