Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Cleantech innovation scouting requires analysts to integrate heterogeneous evidence while preserving traceability. We present GRaph-Augmented INnovation Scouting (GRAINS), a system-oriented design-science artifact that connects governed evidence preparation, hybrid retrieval, optional graph expansion, and staged cite-or-abstain synthesis. Its contribution combines an inspectable evidence-to-answer architecture, an explicit rationale linking design choices to scouting requirements, and empirical observations of system behavior and evaluation sensitivity. Methods We evaluate GRAINS through an exploratory comparison on a source-derived, in-corpus benchmark of 50 broad-cleantech queries with relevance judgments from two large language model judge pipelines and a separate exploratory case-based audit of six battery-domain cases assessed by one researcher. Results Hybrid achieved Recall@100 of 0.951 and Precision@10 of 0.278 using the combined relevance judgments of the two judge pipelines, while none of the tested retrieval contrasts reached statistical significance after global Holm correction. Comparisons of top-10 ranking quality (nDCG@10) depended on the judge pipeline and whether query-source documents were excluded. Limiting the number of retrieved chunks per document increased document diversity with a modest reduction in nDCG@10; the evaluated graph-expanded configuration had lower observed early-ranking scores than Hybrid. Structural checks confirmed citation-identifier compliance in evaluated follow-up answers. The case audit illustrated how the system organizes supported actors, applications, and uncertainties, while revealing gaps in task-specific evidence. Discussion Together, these findings provide bounded system-design observations on the behavior and evaluation of evidence-grounded scouting, while independent human relevance assessment and analyst-workflow validation remain necessary for broader validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: