analiza aiqbench
This research advances AI capabilities in classical language analysis by transforming intertextuality detection from simple similarity scoring into a grounded agentic task that characterizes the "how" and "why" of textual reuse. By leveraging LLMs with constrained tool interfaces to ground findings in exact character spans, the study establishes a rigorous benchmark validated against expert adjudication for complex historical texts like the Twenty-Four Histories. The work highlights critical trade-offs between model precision, operational costs, and calibration confidence while demonstrating how AI can recover corpus-level structures invisible to traditional metrics.
Beyond Similarity: Grounded Agentic Extraction and Expert-Adjudicated Evaluation of Intertextuality in Classical Chinese Histories
arXiv:2607.27595v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Computational approaches to intertextuality have advanced from string matching to neural retrieval, yet their outputs, similarity scores and parallel-passage lists, identify where texts reuse one another without characterizing how or why. We recast fine-grained intertextuality extraction as an agentic task in which a large language model (LLM) reads two text units in full and, through a constrained tool interface, must ground each proposed reuse in exact character spans on both sides and label it under a five-dimension typology of reuse (form, aspect, source-marking, function, stance). We validate the approach on an exhaustive comparison of the Analects with the Book of Han, where three domain experts adjudicate a pooled multi-model candidate set into a benchmark of 2,533 intertextual pairs. Against this standard we study twelve LLMs, reporting precision (56%-93%), a 51$\times$ cost spread at comparable quality, and how well their confidence is calibrated. Expert agreement traces a reliability gradient: dimensions legible on the textual surface are annotated consistently, while those requiring inference of intent are contested, delimiting the claims such annotation supports. Scaling the validated extractor to the full Twenty-Four Histories (65,380 comparisons, 5,766 pairs) recovers corpus-level structure a similarity score cannot express. The interpretive composition of citation shows no systematic change across eighteen centuries, yet the same passage is quoted less and less literally. Stability in the aggregate with drift in the individual case is what a cultural-attraction account expects. We release the extraction protocol and the expert-adjudicated benchmark.
Abstract:Computational approaches to intertextuality have advanced from string matching to neural retrieval, yet their outputs, similarity scores and parallel-passage lists, identify where texts reuse one another without characterizing how or why. We recast fine-grained intertextuality extraction as an agentic task in which a large language model (LLM) reads two text units in full and, through a constrained tool interface, must ground each proposed reuse in exact character spans on both sides and label it under a five-dimension typology of reuse (form, aspect, source-marking, function, stance). We validate the approach on an exhaustive comparison of the Analects with the Book of Han, where three domain experts adjudicate a pooled multi-model candidate set into a benchmark of 2,533 intertextual pairs. Against this standard we study twelve LLMs, reporting precision (56%-93%), a 51$\times$ cost spread at comparable quality, and how well their confidence is calibrated. Expert agreement traces a reliability gradient: dimensions legible on the textual surface are annotated consistently, while those requiring inference of intent are contested, delimiting the claims such annotation supports. Scaling the validated extractor to the full Twenty-Four Histories (65,380 comparisons, 5,766 pairs) recovers corpus-level structure a similarity score cannot express. The interpretive composition of citation shows no systematic change across eighteen centuries, yet the same passage is quoted less and less literally. Stability in the aggregate with drift in the individual case is what a cultural-attraction account expects. We release the extraction protocol and the expert-adjudicated benchmark.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Digital Libraries (cs.DL)
arXiv:2607.27595 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.27595v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.27595 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 340 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026