Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.34313

From Data Footprints to Researcher Fingerprints: Temporal Ego-centric Research Group Detection in Scientific Knowledge Graphs

Abstract

Understanding who researchers collaborate with, when and how their research groups form, and how these evolve over time is a foundational prerequisite for constructing multidimensional, evidence-based researcher fingerprints -- a requirement that has become increasingly urgent in the context of ongoing reforms in research evaluation advocated by initiatives such as DORA, the Leiden Manifesto, and CoARA. In this paper, we propose an egocentric approach for fine-grained research group detection, operating at the scale of individual researchers' ego networks, as extracted from Scientific Knowledge Graphs (SKGs), and requiring the ego node to be present in all identified research groups -- a constraint that is not merely technical but reflects a commitment to researcher-centred analysis. Our approach builds on the Leiden algorithm as its computational core and is grounded in SKGs, which provide the heterogeneous, open scholarly metadata necessary to trace collaboration patterns at scale in a reproducible and transparent manner. We evaluate the proposed method through a user evaluation involving 10 researchers with diverse backgrounds and career stages, demonstrating its ability to surface meaningful and interpretable collaboration structures. The research groups identified constitute the structural scaffold upon which richer characterisations of scholarly identity -- including roles, seniority, contribution types, and publication patterns -- can be built in subsequent work, contributing to the broader goal of fairer and more transparent research assessment.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Simone Angioni, Miriam Baglioni, Andrea Mannocci, Paolo Manghi. 2026-10-25. From Data Footprints to Researcher Fingerprints: Temporal Ego-centric Research Group Detection in Scientific Knowledge Graphs. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23643294

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Interpreting LLM Scores in Peer Review: Alignment and Divergence Across Prompts, Domains, and Manuscript Features

Large language model (LLM) scores are being studied as information for scholarly evaluation. Interpreting these scores requires evidence about agreement with human judgments and its variation across evaluation conditions. Guided by an argument-based approach to validation, we compare four LLMs on 7,083 public ICLR 2024 submissions under a standard review condition and examine ten prompt conditions using DeepSeek-V3.2. We distinguish average score divergence, paper-level absolute error, and rank correlation, then examine domain differences and adjusted manuscript-feature associations. For DeepSeek-V3.2, Area Chair guidance reduces mean rating divergence from 1.460 to 0.199 points and mean absolute error from 1.577 to 0.942, while rank correlation changes from 0.377 to 0.387. Historical references combined with downward scoring instructions yield mean divergence of 0.052 and rank correlation of 0.321. Domain differences remain after global calibration. Longer titles have positive adjusted associations with rating divergence, and formula density has negative associations across all four configurations. These findings connect score interpretation to the scoring procedure, evaluation context, and manuscript information represented in the comparison. They show why aggregate alignment, manuscript ordering, and correspondence within manuscript groups require distinct evidence when evaluating LLM-generated scholarly assessment information.

cs.DL↗

Is this Citation on Point?

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in \emph{Mata v. Avianca} for filing a brief containing hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. These failures can be largely caught by database lookups. The harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered, a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora. We either replace the cited case or change only the pinpoint page within the same case. Our evaluation of fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples shows that models catch $93$--$100\%$ of wrong-case corruptions, but they only catch $37$--$61\%$ of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and $52$--$83\%$ on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Larger-scale models and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses $40\%$ of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and $18\%$ on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. These results show that citation misrepresentations remain difficult to detect automatically. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

cs.DL↗

Sealed bets on emerging research topics: a protocol for judging early detection, applied to a detector and to eight research funders

Tools that claim to detect emerging research topics are rarely judged on their own lists. Our main contribution is a protocol that makes such judgement possible. A bet freezes four things before its verdict can be known: the date of the photograph, the population of candidates, the verdict rule, and the comparison with chance drawn among the same candidates. The list has a fixed length, is read on two axes (champions and failures) against a computed ceiling, and is sealed by cryptographic fingerprint; sealing proves that a list existed at a date, not that it is right. A topic is a champion if its yearly volume of records triples within three years and reaches 100, a failure if it falls by 30%. We apply the protocol to one detector on PubMed/MEDLINE, in three separate blocks. On a retrospective benchmark (2017-2022), chance among the candidates yields 26.7 champions and 15.1 failures out of 120 slots; the detector yields 85 and 3, and under nine pre-registered variants of the verdict rule its champions stay between 2.5 and 5.0 times chance, with no more failures. The detector was developed with these verdicts known, and its specification is not published. Prospective validation rests on six sealed bets, judged in early 2029 and early 2030; only bets 5 and 6 test exactly the instrument of the benchmark. A secondary, exploratory study applies the same judge to eight research funders: under exact name matching, which may disadvantage grant texts, the detector's lists are more concentrated in future champions than the twenty topics named in the most grants of each funder (70.8% against 20.8% to 35.8%, chance 22.3%). We document data defects, negative results and the limits of each comparison.

cs.DL↗