arXiv:2602. 08873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation.
arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
arXiv:2606. 26130v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear.
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
arXiv:2607. 19739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have recently gained traction in recommender systems due to their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, previous LLM-based agents suffer from hallucination and context-length limitations, and thus are not suitable for full-ranking recommendation tasks.
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
arXiv:2602. 06470v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Scaling training data and model parameters has long driven progress in large language models (LLMs), but this paradigm is increasingly constrained by the scarcity of high-quality data and diminishing returns from rising computational costs.
arXiv:2607. 01242v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by end users, yet existing personalization methods relying on static profiles or text-only signals fail to capture query-specific expertise variation.
arXiv:2606. 07454v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific paper recommendation is typically evaluated as static ranking over a fixed candidate set, yet real scientific reading unfolds as a daily, longitudinal process in which interests shift and feedback accumulates.
arXiv:2608. 03659v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting.
Although large language models (LLMs) have recently gained traction in recommender systems due to their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, previous LLM-based agents suffer from hallucination and context-length limitations, and thus are not suitable for full-ranking recommendation tasks. To circumvent these limitations through architectural design rather than modifying the LLM itself, we propose an agent-based recommendation framework, memory-based $\textbf{P}$ersonalized $\textbf{R}$ecommendation $\textbf{T}$ool learning via autonomous language $\textbf{A}$gents (PRTA), in which an LLM acts as a central planner interacting with multiple recommendation models as tools.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency.
Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench.