arXiv AI

Crystal: Characterizing Relative Impact of Scholarly Publications

arXiv:2603. 26791v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing a cited paper's impact is typically done by analyzing its citation context in isolation within the citing paper.

arXiv AI
Sep 10

From Citations to Contributions: LLM-Assisted Credit Scoring of Research Articles

The paper proposes a new method for credit scoring research articles that distinguishes between a paper’s original contribution and the prior work it builds upon. It introduces a hierarchical ‘contribution tree’ framework that conserves importance across a document’s structure and separates original from citation-derived credit. Large language models are employed as noisy comparative estimators to scale the analysis, and the approach is extended to collections of articles via weighted citation graphs to produce corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores.

By Sana Ebrahimi, Suraj Shetiya, Abolfazl Asudeh
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact

The paper "Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact" explores using delayed signals of scientific uptake—specifically citation-normalized impact—as feedback to steer large language models toward generating high‑impact research ideas. The authors build a dataset of over 100,000 computer science papers, train a reward model to predict citation impact from goal‑idea pairs, and align an idea generator via supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. Evaluation with a reference‑grounded protocol shows that the RL‑tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than baseline models.

By Shubham Kale, Aniketh Garikaparthi, Manasi Patwardhan
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 11

Authority, Truth, and Citation Bias: A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Benchmark for Studying Epistemic Susceptibility in Large Language Models

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.