LLM-Metrics: Measuring Research Impact Through Large Language Model Memory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22176v1
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 08:45:57 GMT
• Title: LLM-Metrics: Measuring Research Impact Through Large Language Model Memory
• Abstract summary: We propose LLM-Metrics, a research-impact assessment metric derived from the parametric memory of large language models (LLMs)<n>We evaluated 549 computer science papers published in 2023-2024 across 17 LLMs spanning 0.5B to 72B parameters from six vendors.<n>Of the 17 models, 15 produced positive predictions, 9 of which were significant at p less than 0.05, with an overall Spearman correlation of rho = 0.1495 and p = 0.0004 against citation counts.
• Score: 0.09685837672183746
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Citation counts remain the dominant metric for assessing research impact, yet they suffer from well-documented limitations: temporal lag, disciplinary bias, and Matthew effects. Here we propose LLM-Metrics, a research-impact assessment metric derived from the parametric memory of large language models (LLMs). The central hypothesis is that high-impact papers receive greater exposure in the academic community, that this exposure enters LLM training data in textual form, and that models consequently form stronger parametric memory of these papers. We designed four types of multiple-choice probes, covering title recognition, author recognition, method recognition, and venue recognition, and evaluated 549 computer science papers published in 2023-2024 across 17 LLMs spanning 0.5B to 72B parameters from six vendors. Of the 17 models, 15 produced positive predictions, 9 of which were significant at p less than 0.05, with an overall Spearman correlation of rho = 0.1495 and p = 0.0004 against citation counts. Three additional findings support the proposed mechanism. First, the predictive signal was stronger for 2024 papers, rho = 0.1880, whose citation counts were near zero at model-training time, reducing the plausibility of a simple reverse-causality explanation. Second, author-recognition probes showed the strongest discriminative power, consistent with an exposure-driven memory mechanism. Third, model scale and predictive power were non-monotonic: a 3B-parameter model, Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, with rho = 0.1829, outperformed most larger models, supporting a selective-memory hypothesis in which the limited capacity of smaller models can serve as an effective information filter. LLM-Metrics offers a real-time, cross-disciplinary, citation-independent paradigm for research assessment.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• AgentIdeaBench: Benchmarking Scientific Ideation in the Agent Era [55.37558486468993]
  We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration.<n>We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines.<n>Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T15:19:13Z)
• Towards Robust Reinforcement Learning for Small-Scale Language Model Agents [5.301609879131692]
  In this paper, fifteen (model, corpus) configurations were trained using Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)<n>The experiments included Pythia-70M, 160M, 410M and SmolLM2-135M, 360M on the TinyStories, CNN/DailyMail, and Wiki-text103 corpora.<n>The proposed system converged stably in all experiments and improved preference win rate over the SFT baseline in configurations with a fluent prior and an informative reward signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T21:30:44Z)
• When Does Few-Shot Prompting Help? A Systematic Empirical Study of Shot-Count Effects Across Model Scale, Architecture, and Output Parsing Robustness [0.0]
  Few-shot prompting, the practice of prepending a small number of input-output demonstration pairs to a query before presenting it to a large language model, is widely adopted in NLP.<n>Yet little systematic work investigates how shot count interacts with model scale, architecture, and output format compliance in classification performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T00:31:40Z)
• Thinking Like a Scientist? A Structural Study of LLM-Generated Research Methods [4.424680117690851]
  We prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers.<n>Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are.<n>The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T14:53:30Z)
• SciImpact: A Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Field Benchmark for Scientific Impact Prediction [10.526822187607658]
  SciImpact is a large-scale, multi-dimensional benchmark for scientific impact prediction spanning 19 fields.<n>It comprises 215,928 contrastive paper pairs reflecting meaningful impact differences in both short-term and long-term settings.<n>We evaluate 11 widely used large language models (LLMs) on SciImpact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T20:33:31Z)
• How LLMs Cite and Why It Matters: A Cross-Model Audit of Reference Fabrication in AI-Assisted Academic Writing and Methods to Detect Phantom Citations [1.0829694003408499]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been noted to fabricate scholarly citations, yet the scope of this behavior remains poorly quantified.<n>We present one of the largest hallucination citation audits to date, in which 10 commercially deployed LLMs were prompted across four academic domains.<n>Our results show that the observed hallucination rates span a fivefold range (between 11.4% and 56.8%) and are strongly shaped by model, domain, and prompt framing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T00:14:00Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Large Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation [66.84286617519258]
  Large language models are transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis.<n>Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I (false positive), Type II (false negative), Type S (wrong sign), or Type M (exaggerated effect) errors.<n>We find that intentional LLM hacking is strikingly simple. By replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science studies, we show that, with just a handful of prompt paraphrases, virtually anything can be presented as statistically significant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T17:58:53Z)
• Attribution in Scientific Literature: New Benchmark and Methods [41.64918533152914]
  Large language models (LLMs) present a promising yet challenging frontier for automated source citation in scientific communication.<n>We introduce REASONS, a novel dataset with sentence-level annotations across 12 scientific domains from arXiv.<n>We conduct extensive experiments with models such as GPT-O1, GPT-4O, GPT-3.5, DeepSeek, and other smaller models like Perplexity AI (7B)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T16:38:51Z)
• Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
  We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.