Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Story2Proposal: A Scaffold for Structured Scientific Paper Writing

Zhuoyang Qian, Wei Shi, Xu Lin, Li Ling, Meng Luo, Ziming Wang, Zhiwei Zhang, Tengyue Xu, Gaoge Liu, Zhentao Zhang, Shuo Zhang, Ziqi Wang, Zheng Feng, Yan Luo, Shu Xu, Yongjin Chen, Zhibo Feng, Zhuo Chen, Bruce Yuan, Biao Wu, Harry Wang, Kris Chen · Mar 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle. Existing language-model generation pipelines rely on unconstrained text synthesis with validation applied only after generation, often producing structural drift, missing figures or tables, and cross-section inconsistencies. We introduce Story2Proposal, a contract-governed multi-agent framework that converts a research story into a structured manuscript through coordinated agents operating under a persistent shared visual contract. The system organizes architect, writer, refiner, and renderer agents around a contract state that tracks section structure and registered visual elements, while evaluation agents supply feedback in a generate evaluate adapt loop that updates the contract during generation. Experiments on tasks derived from the Jericho research corpus show that Story2Proposal achieved an expert evaluation score of 6.145 versus 3.963 for DirectChat (+2.182) across GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Qwen backbones. Compared with the structured generation baseline Fars, Story2Proposal obtained an average score of 5.705 versus 5.197, indicating improved structural consistency and visual alignment.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Experiments on tasks derived from the Jericho research corpus show that Story2Proposal achieved an expert evaluation score of 6.145 versus 3.963 for DirectChat (+2.182) across GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Qwen backbones."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle.
  • Existing language-model generation pipelines rely on unconstrained text synthesis with validation applied only after generation, often producing structural drift, missing figures or tables, and cross-section inconsistencies.
  • We introduce Story2Proposal, a contract-governed multi-agent framework that converts a research story into a structured manuscript through coordinated agents operating under a persistent shared visual contract.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce Story2Proposal, a contract-governed multi-agent framework that converts a research story into a structured manuscript through coordinated agents operating under a persistent shared visual contract.
  • The system organizes architect, writer, refiner, and renderer agents around a contract state that tracks section structure and registered visual elements, while evaluation agents supply feedback in a generate evaluate adapt loop that…
  • Experiments on tasks derived from the Jericho research corpus show that Story2Proposal achieved an expert evaluation score of 6.145 versus 3.963 for DirectChat (+2.182) across GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Qwen backbones.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce Story2Proposal, a contract-governed multi-agent framework that converts a research story into a structured manuscript through coordinated agents operating under a persistent shared visual contract.
  • The system organizes architect, writer, refiner, and renderer agents around a contract state that tracks section structure and registered visual elements, while evaluation agents supply feedback in a generate evaluate adapt loop that…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now