arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
arXiv:2606. 24894v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited.
arXiv:2609.14770v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generalisations are common in scientific communication, even though they are semantically ambiguous. An automated method is needed to identify and ca...
The paper introduces IDRBench, a framework designed to evaluate how well large language models (LLMs) can integrate knowledge across disciplines for interdisciplinary research. It comprises datasets and tasks—IDR Paper Identification, IDR Idea Integration, and IDR Idea Recommendation—to benchmark LLM performance. The authors analyze ten mainstream LLMs, offering a comprehensive assessment and establishing baselines for future studies.
arXiv:2606.22342v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: How does research evolve, and can we trace it at the level of individual claims? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts....
How does research evolve, and what substrate would let us forecast where it goes next? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts: ideas extend prior methods, address known limitations, realize proposed future directions, and sometimes dispute earlier claims.
arXiv:2608. 07254v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing specialization of scientific research challenges existing classification systems, which provide effective representations of broad disciplines and research topics but often fail to capture the fine-grained conceptual structure of contemporary science.
arXiv:2601. 15485v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Federal research funding shapes the direction, diversity, and impact of the US scientific enterprise.
The paper maps the nascent social‑science literature on large language models (LLMs) by analysing 198 curated papers and 47,719 field‑scale papers. It identifies three main domains—LLM as Social Minds, LLM Societies, and LLM‑Human Interactions—each containing 13 subcategories such as reasoning, bias, collective intelligence, and trust. The taxonomy is validated through clustering stability, author classification agreement, and topic mapping, revealing differing prominence across conference and journal venues.
arXiv:2607. 05574v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates consequential decisions in healthcare, law, and public services, and the field has responded with an extensive methodology for measuring and mitigating bias.
arXiv:2609.00319v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Online health information seeking is shifting from keyword search, where users consider a ranked list of links, to conversational systems that compos...
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs.