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.
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:2608.21376v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many NLP tasks require systems to provide attribution in their outputs--i.e. citations to grounding sources. Attribution serves as a bulwark against...
arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
The paper introduces the Scientific Contribution Graph, a large-scale resource that extracts 6 million scientific contributions from 655 k open-access papers across multiple disciplines and links them with 36 million prerequisite edges. It frames automated technological roadmapping as the task of identifying contributions and their prerequisites, and presents a new scientific prerequisite prediction task where models forecast which existing technologies enable future discoveries. The authors report that current models achieve a 0.48 MAP score on temporally-filtered backtesting, indicating rapid progress in this area.
arXiv:2609.14248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Faithful citation attribution begins with identifying the intended source for a scientific claim. We study this source-identification capability thro...
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....
arXiv:2602. 20459v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow?
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.
Surveys remain the primary way researchers grasp the lineage of methods within an AI subfield, but they scale poorly against the current rate of publication. Existing taxonomy-induction methods are la...
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution under different evidence conditions. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to balance reliability and responsiveness. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs across various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but increases abstention, while adversarial metadata can push hallucination rates above 85%. Human evaluation confirms a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
The paper introduces EvoTree, a staged framework for automatically generating evolution trees from citation graphs. It separates backbone learning from temporal refinement, using a graph-aware encoder and hierarchical clustering to build a stable taxonomy, then fine-tunes temporally to attach marginal papers under monotonic-path constraints, and finally labels concepts with an LLM without changing the topology. The authors release an annotated benchmark across 11 AI subfields and report that EvoTree outperforms baselines in NMI, citation-direction accuracy, concept purity, and marginal-paper detection.
arXiv:2608. 10740v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature.