Public Profile Matters: A Scalable Integrated Approach to Recommend Citations in the Wild

Karan Goyal, Dikshant Kukreja, Vikram Goyal, Mukesh Mohania · Mar 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Proper citation of relevant literature is essential for contextualising and validating scientific contributions. While current citation recommendation systems leverage local and global textual information, they often overlook the nuances of the human citation behaviour. Recent methods that incorporate such patterns improve performance but incur high computational costs and introduce systematic biases into downstream rerankers. To address this, we propose Profiler, a lightweight, non-learnable module that captures human citation patterns efficiently and without bias, significantly enhancing candidate retrieval. Furthermore, we identify a critical limitation in current evaluation protocol: the systems are assessed in a transductive setting, which fails to reflect real-world scenarios. We introduce a rigorous Inductive evaluation setting that enforces strict temporal constraints, simulating the recommendation of citations for newly authored papers in the wild. Finally, we present DAVINCI, a novel reranking model that integrates profiler-derived confidence priors with semantic information via an adaptive vector-gating mechanism. Our system achieves new state-of-the-art results across multiple benchmark datasets, demonstrating superior efficiency and generalisability.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.