Beyond Single-Score Ranking: Facet-Aware Reranking for Controllable Diversity in Paper Recommendation

Scientific papers may relate by problem, method, result, or contribution, but document-level retrievers collapse these into a single similarity score without saying why they are related. Citation- and similarity-based retrieval alone also confines search to the neighbourhood of what is already known, whereas generative retrieval generates document identifiers directly, enabling the exploratory retrieval that scientific discovery depends on. We connect papers in a graph whose edges are typed by these four facets, derived from facet items and citation signals, and distil it into a generative retriever whose identifiers are the papers' own facet text. Two graph properties do not survive naive distillation. First, because every training pair is an edge, naive enumeration indexes just 84% of the corpus. Coverage-aware distillation makes every paper learnable through a reverse-neighbour fallback, a minimum-coverage threshold, and edge-importance weighting. Second, constrained decoding guarantees that every generated identifier is a valid paper, but not that the graph connects it to the query. Graph-weighted reciprocal rank fusion scales each candidate's rank term by its query-candidate edge weight, dropping unsupported ones. On LitWeave, our constructed corpus of 11,359 NLP papers, Graft recovers 91% of its graph teacher's Recall@20 with no nearest-neighbour index or encoder at inference, and outperforms the graph teacher on query papers outside the corpus. It reproduces the graph's own facet labels at 0.922 precision, so every returned paper arrives labelled with the facet that surfaced it rather than an opaque score.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design a $\textbf{C}$omparison-$\textbf{N}$ative framework for $\textbf{P}$aper $\textbf{E}$valuation ($\textbf{CNPE}$), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview.

Scientific paper recommendation is typically evaluated as static ranking over a fixed candidate set, yet real scientific reading unfolds as a daily, longitudinal process in which interests shift and feedback accumulates. We introduce PaperFlow, a framework that organizes it into three coupled stages: Profiling, which constructs and maintains a structured, inspectable scholarly profile from heterogeneous cold-start evidence; Recommending, which ranks each date-specific paper stream through multi-signal aggregation under a fixed display budget; and Adapting, which updates user state from semantically distinct feedback signals and models interest drift across days. We further define a longitudinal user-day benchmark that fixes users, dates, candidate pools, visible inputs, and hidden simulated relevance labels under a shared temporal information boundary. The benchmark contains 24 simulated research users, 50 daily paper streams, 1,200 user-day episodes, 20,727 unique papers, and 497,448 episode-paper records. We additionally specify a blind human-evaluation protocol to validate alignment between automatic metrics and expert judgments. Experiments against five scientific recommendation baselines show that PaperFlow achieves the strongest oracle-based ranking, the highest behavioral alignment with simulated reading selections, and the best blind human-evaluation score.