SEARCH · Searcharxiv

Search Searcharxiv

Search indexed arXiv papers on artificial intelligence, large language models, computer vision and robotics. Read source abstracts and follow links to arXiv.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

44 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

LLMs Interpret, Embeddings Organize, Graphs Emerge: Agent-Driven Compilation of Scientific Knowledge

Sustained scientific work requires a knowledge substrate that carries interpretation across tasks and preserves paths to source evidence. We call this process \emph{scientific knowledge compilation} and implement it in ASKS, the \emph{Agent-Driven Scientific Knowledge System}. For each source, an LLM produces a readable Wiki view and machine-facing semantics. Deterministic checks convert the latter into a document-local GraphDelta, and embedding geometry together with explicit graph rules integrates the proposed changes into persistent state. Each ingest is an inspectable state transition over accumulated knowledge, with compiled Wiki and graph views linked to the preserved source record. We examine this process by chronologically compiling 56 published papers from one research program. Branch survival, cross-paper support, lineage, coverage, and churn yield a source-traceable author research portrait centered on tensor-network methods, with branches into quantum many-body research, tensor-network machine learning, and quantum-AI-oriented directions. In this run, higher-level Hub organization remains stable and low-churn. Canonical-node growth is predominantly additive. Graph-level measurements and navigation paths retain links to the source records from which they were compiled.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Visible but Not Yet Curatable: Characterizing the Curatability of Compact and Derived Open LLM Artifacts

Open Large Language Model (LLM) research increasingly produces compact and derived artifacts, such as adapters, quantized checkpoints, merged models, and distilled variants, that are distributed across papers, model hubs, model cards, code repositories, and release statements. Although these artifacts are publicly visible, digital libraries often lack sufficient evidence to identify, preserve, and cite them as coherent scholarly objects. We introduce a framework that conceptualizes curatability as a record-level property of distributed scholarly records and operationalizes it through four evidence dimensions: artifact identity, scholarly linkage, upstream evidence, and release assets. Guided by this framework, we conduct the first collection-scale characterization of open LLM curatability using a May 2026 snapshot of 191,375 public Hugging Face repositories and a core corpus of 2,214 scholarly papers. Our results reveal a pronounced visibility-to-curatability funnel. While 90.7% of paper records contain at least one useful curation signal, only 18.1% combine usable upstream evidence with concrete release evidence, and only 6.1% provide sufficiently coordinated evidence to support high-curatability records. Based on these findings, we derive a minimal seven-field curatable record and complementary responsibilities for model hubs, scholarly indexes, and digital libraries, providing practical guidance for improving the preservation and bibliographic control of open LLM artifacts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?

Failures of retraction are common in science. Why do they occur? And what determines whether a retraction is successful? We use data from citation records and Altmetrics to test proposed answers to these questions. LaCroix et al. employ network models to argue the social spread of information helps explain failures of retraction. One prediction is that widely known results, surprisingly, should be easier to retract, since their retraction is more relevant. Our results support this conclusion. We find highly cited papers show more significant reductions in citation after retraction and garner more attention to their retractions as they occur.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Measuring the Installed Base: Nordic Health Dataset Catalogues Against HealthDCAT-AP Release 7

The European Health Data Space requires member states to publish machine readable descriptions of the health datasets available for secondary use, and the European Commission publishes HealthDCAT-AP as the metadata profile those descriptions are meant to satisfy. The profile has been designed and validated against curated examples, never against the catalogues already live. We report that measurement for the Nordic region. On 25 August 2026 the 11 Nordic national catalogues harvested by the European data portal held 2,811 dataset descriptions carrying the EU health theme, and none satisfies all eight properties HealthDCAT-AP Release 7 makes mandatory on a dataset. Three of the eight are present on exactly zero records across five countries. Set beside the portal's own quality assessment, which validates DCAT-AP and never mentions the health profile, this is not a health extension skipped on top of sound generic practice: no Nordic catalogue reaches the assessment's top rating band, 5 of the 11 are reported at zero per cent DCAT-AP compliant, and the properties surviving in both layers are the ones a human types into a form, not the ones needing a value bound to a controlled vocabulary. Two further results follow. Finland contributes 2,259 descriptions to the European portal of which 1,146 carry a theme, and not one uses the EU theme authority vocabulary, so a European health filter returns no Finnish dataset at all. Separately, the authority namespace answers HTTP 200 with a well formed empty document for terms it never defined, letting 1,238 datasets across the wider portal carry theme IRIs that resolve to nothing while passing any status code check. We publish the vocabulary, the shapes and the harvesters, record every verdict as a dated observation rather than a property of the dataset, and report the five errors this discipline caught before publication.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

From Extraction to Governed Memory: Multi-Agent Knowledge Graph Construction with Domain-Expert Review

Knowledge graphs used by agentic systems are often treated as flat stores of extracted triples, with little record of who owns a fact, why it was admitted, or how it should be used downstream. We argue that reliable agentic knowledge systems require governance as an essential component of graph construction to bridge this gap. We propose MAGG, a principled multi-agent framework for constructing Governed Knowledge Graphs that introduces explicit governance decisions for reliable and trustworthy knowledge sharing. A domain classifier first induces entity and relation types directly from document content, enabling operation in open-world settings without fixed schemas. Candidate triples are assigned to domain owners, reviewed against supporting evidence, admitted through governance decisions, and stored with audit metadata. The same ownership structure is reused during question answering, where queries are routed to domain-specific graph experts rather than answered through undifferentiated retrieval. Our evaluation demonstrates MAGG's effectiveness: On SciERC, MAGG improves strict triple F1 by 47% and mapped triple F1 by 51% over flat insertion. A blinded review of 120 triples finds governed-only triples more often source-supported than flat-only ones, and revised triples supported in 100% of cases. Finally, on MuSiQue, MAGG outperforms Microsoft GraphRAG by 9.0 exact-match points and 11.2 token-F1 points.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes

PhD advisors are central to doctoral training, but their influence may vary across career stages. Early-, mid-, and late-career advisors may differ in research activity, mentoring capacity, professional networks and access to resources. However, little is known about how PhD advisor career stage is associated with PhD student development outcomes. Drawing on multiple large-scale datasets comprising 250,838 advisor-advisee pairs from 312 U.S. PhD-granting institutions, we examine the relationship between advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes in knowledge production, collaboration networks and academic career placement. We find that early-career PhD advisors are associated with advisees' higher research productivity and citation performance, more opportunities to engage in direct and intensive research collaboration, and greater likelihood of securing a faculty position. Mid- and late-career faculty, by contrast, appear to have advantages in providing network capital which students can inherit after graduation, training PhD advisees to produce disruptive research, and supporting them in securing faculty positions at top institutions. This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the reproduction of scientific talent by revealing the role of advisor career stage in shaping this process. These findings have implications for doctoral applicants' decision-making and for institutional policymaking on PhD training, faculty support and faculty evaluation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Impact of a reclassification of Web of Science articles on bibliometric indicators

This work aims at evaluating a reclassification of Web of Science articles implemented at OST. Articles from the 254 scientific categories of the Web of Science were reclassified at article level in 242 modified categories and 11 disciplines using the method of S. Milojević (2020). The reclassification is based on paper references categories and it no longer assigns papers to multiple or to multidisciplinary categories. It improves the accuracy and the modularity of the WoS classification. As there are important changes in document assignment at the lowest level, usual indicators such as disciplinary profiles or field normalized indicators are significantly modified. This study examines some of these modifications to provide explanations for the recipients of OST reports. Changes in specialization indexes reveal specific journal choices by scientists. In a sample of 25 countries, Brazil and China offer examples of facilities or constraints for selecting journals to publish certain research works.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Dynamic disruption index across citation and cited references windows: Recommendations for thresholds in research evaluation

The temporal dimension of citation accumulation poses fundamental challenges for quantitative research evaluations, particularly in assessing disruptive and consolidating research through the disruption index (D). While prior studies emphasize minimum citation windows (mostly 3-5 years) for reliable citation impact measurements, the time-sensitive nature of D - which quantifies a paper' s capacity to eclipse prior knowledge - remains underexplored. This study addresses two critical gaps: (1) determining the temporal thresholds required for publications to meet citation/reference prerequisites, and (2) identifying "optimal" citation windows that balance early predictability and longitudinal validity. By analyzing millions of publications across four fields with varying citation dynamics, we employ some metrics to track D stabilization patterns. Key findings reveal that a 10-year window achieves >80% agreement with final D classifications, while shorter windows (3 years) exhibit instability. Publications with >=30 references stabilize 1-3 years faster, and extreme cases (top/bottom 5% D values) become identifiable within 5 years - enabling early detection of 60-80% of highly disruptive and consolidating works. The findings offer significant implications for scholarly evaluation and science policy, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of citation window length in research assessment (based on D).

cs.DL↗