aiqbench analysis
LLMScholarBench introduces a critical framework for auditing LLM-based scholar recommendations by jointly evaluating model infrastructure and end-user inference-time interventions. The study reveals that common deployment strategies like RAG or temperature adjustment do not offer uniform improvements but instead reshape specific trade-offs between technical validity, diversity, and factuality. For practitioners, this underscores the necessity of measuring intervention impacts across multiple metrics rather than relying on isolated model audits.
Whose Name Comes Up? II: Benchmarking and Intervention-Based Auditing of LLM-Based Scholar Recommendation
arXiv:2602.08873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation. Existing audits typically evaluate such recommendations in isolation, ignoring end-user inference-time interventions. Thus, it remains unclear whether failures (e.g., refusals, hallucinations, uneven coverage) stem from model choice or deployment decisions. We introduce LLMScholarBench, a benchmark for auditing LLM-based scholar recommendation that jointly evaluates model infrastructure and end-user interventions across multiple tasks. LLMScholarBench measures technical quality and social representation using nine metrics. We instantiate the benchmark in physics expert recommendation and audit 22 LLMs under temperature variation, representation-constrained prompting, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) via web search. Our results show that each intervention entails distinct tradeoffs. Higher temperature degrades validity, consistency, and factuality. Representation-constrained prompting improves diversity at the expense of factuality, while RAG primarily improves technical quality while reducing diversity and parity. Overall, end-user interventions reshape trade-offs rather than providing uniform gains. LLMScholarBench makes all these dynamics auditable across models and interventions in LLM-based scholar recommendations.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation. Existing audits typically evaluate such recommendations in isolation, ignoring end-user inference-time interventions. Thus, it remains unclear whether failures (e.g., refusals, hallucinations, uneven coverage) stem from model choice or deployment decisions. We introduce LLMScholarBench, a benchmark for auditing LLM-based scholar recommendation that jointly evaluates model infrastructure and end-user interventions across multiple tasks. LLMScholarBench measures technical quality and social representation using nine metrics. We instantiate the benchmark in physics expert recommendation and audit 22 LLMs under temperature variation, representation-constrained prompting, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) via web search. Our results show that each intervention entails distinct tradeoffs. Higher temperature degrades validity, consistency, and factuality. Representation-constrained prompting improves diversity at the expense of factuality, while RAG primarily improves technical quality while reducing diversity and parity. Overall, end-user interventions reshape trade-offs rather than providing uniform gains. LLMScholarBench makes all these dynamics auditable across models and interventions in LLM-based scholar recommendations.
In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 (KDD '26). 30 pages: 11 pages in main (6 figures, 1 table), 19 pages in appendix (22 figures, 2 tables)
Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Social and Information Networks (cs.SI); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)
H.3.3; F.2.3; K.4.2
arXiv:2602.08873 [cs.IR]
(or arXiv:2602.08873v2 [cs.IR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3770855.3817543 DOI(s) linking to related resources
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 227 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026