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

Resolving correct citations can be a time-consuming task for research writers. We address local citation recommendation (LCR), where the goal is to retrieve appropriate references for a given sentence. Web tools generally depend on the existing citation graph, which may bias results toward citation count or more recent publications. LCR research using full paper texts has been limited by the lack of publicly available data. We present a new dataset, the Local Citation Recommendation Corpus (LCRC), containing 14,735 scientific statements derived from astrophysics review papers, each with one or more citation targets whose full text is accessible via API. Using this dataset we systematically compare retrieval methods and develop a citation recommendation system that avoids citation graph bias while achieving 8.0% improvement in Recall@25 and 6.9% improvement in NDCG@25 over dense retrieval baselines without model fine-tuning. To support reproducibility, we make our code and dataset publicly available.

We study large-scale literature search from two complementary angles: improving the retrieval pipeline, and stress-testing the human reference list as an evaluation target. First, we implement a Deep Research pipeline that processes the full query paper and expands the retrieved results breadth-first along their bibliographies, and show that it substantially outperforms vanilla API-only search, raising recall on RollingEval-Jun25 (a 250-paper literature-search benchmark) from below 20% to above 80%. Second, we use a neutral LLM-as-a-judge to determine if human references are sound ground truth for the task. We find significant limitations: only 51% of human citations are judged moderately relevant or higher, against 86--88% for the strongest AI-based re-rankers. We study this gap on the OpenAlex co-authorship graph, finding that humans are 2.5x more likely than the best AI re-rankers to cite a direct collaborator. Together, our results argue against single-axis literature-search evaluation: recall, topical-relevance scoring, ranked-list diversity, and a co-authorship-distance diagnostic each measure complementary properties of citation quality and should be reported jointly.

Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.