Representing Research Attention as Contextually Structured Flows

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as research agents, yet their ability to track shifts in research attention is difficult to evaluate because reviews and research ideas lack uniquely verifiable outcomes. We introduce Research Attention Prediction (RAP), a rolling benchmark covering 278 AI/ML fields and 1,390 episodes. At each cut-off, an LLM agent searches a temporally restricted arXiv corpus and predicts the next six months' paper shares across eight frozen research directions. Search generally helps, but all four diagnostic models perform worse than an exact-count exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) baseline in compositional accuracy. We identify two linked bottlenecks. Under cumulative-history access, State carry-forward outperforms direct Forecast for all four diagnostic models; frozen-evidence replay links a shared component of this reversal to Forecast-oriented policies retrieving a smaller share of recent evidence. Even with exact historical activity, future-specific updating remains limited, with only GPT-5.5 plus reopened Search slightly surpassing EWMA. Fine-tuning on realised outcomes improves Qwen3-4B's forecast Spearman correlation by 0.105 on held-out fields at later origins, with gains also on change-rich episodes.

Citation counts remain the dominant metric for assessing research impact, yet they suffer from well-documented limitations: temporal lag, disciplinary bias, and Matthew effects. Here we propose LLM-Metrics, a research-impact assessment metric derived from the parametric memory of large language models (LLMs). The central hypothesis is that high-impact papers receive greater exposure in the academic community, that this exposure enters LLM training data in textual form, and that models consequently form stronger parametric memory of these papers. We designed four types of multiple-choice probes, covering title recognition, author recognition, method recognition, and venue recognition, and evaluated 549 computer science papers published in 2023-2024 across 17 LLMs spanning 0.5B to 72B parameters from six vendors. Of the 17 models, 15 produced positive predictions, 9 of which were significant at p less than 0.05, with an overall Spearman correlation of rho = 0.1495 and p = 0.0004 against citation counts. Three additional findings support the proposed mechanism. First, the predictive signal was stronger for 2024 papers, rho = 0.1880, whose citation counts were near zero at model-training time, reducing the plausibility of a simple reverse-causality explanation. Second, author-recognition probes showed the strongest discriminative power, consistent with an exposure-driven memory mechanism. Third, model scale and predictive power were non-monotonic: a 3B-parameter model, Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, with rho = 0.1829, outperformed most larger models, supporting a selective-memory hypothesis in which the limited capacity of smaller models can serve as an effective information filter. LLM-Metrics offers a real-time, cross-disciplinary, citation-independent paradigm for research assessment.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems inject external knowledge to improve LLM outputs, yet the format of injected content -- distinct from its semantic relevance -- can independently distort the model's attention distribution. We identify and formalise a phenomenon we term the structural attention tax: knowledge graph (KG) triples, due to their relational delimiters and repeated slot patterns, capture 2-3x more attention per token than semantically equivalent natural-language text ($\hat{o}$(KG) $\approx$ 0.70 vs. $\hat{o}$(neutral) $\approx$ 0.25), compressing demonstration attention by up to 42% -- regardless of whether the triples are relevant or noise. We develop a formal framework decomposing attention scores into semantic and structural components (Eq. 2), derive a compression bound (Proposition 1) connecting token-level format bias to demonstration attention loss, and show that the structural term governs how much attention is diverted while the semantic term governs whether this helps or hurts. This decoupling reveals two orthogonal axes for improving retrieval-augmented ICL: optimising retrieval quality (semantic axis) and reducing format-driven attention capture (structural axis). Empirically, across two model families (Mistral-7B, LLaMA-3-8B) and three QA benchmarks, we observe that source-task alignment dominates: task-matched BM25 retrieval achieves 58-62% on HotpotQA vs. ConceptNet's 25-27%, a >30 pp gap that dwarfs all gating strategies ($\leq$2 pp). We derive five structure-aware mitigation strategies from the framework, ranging from zero-cost prompt modifications to training-time regularisation; format flattening (S3) is validated by both accuracy and attention-level evidence from a verbalized-triple control, while structural dispersal (S1) yields mixed results that illuminate the challenges of format-level intervention.