Paper detail

SciNetBench: A Relation-Aware Benchmark for Scientific Literature Retrieval Agents

The rapid development of AI agent has spurred the development of advanced research tools, such as Deep Research. Achieving this require a nuanced understanding of the relations within scientific literature, surpasses the scope of keyword-based or embedding-based retrieval. Existing retrieval agents mainly focus on the content-level similarities and are unable to decode critical relational dynamics, such as identifying corroborating or conflicting studies or tracing technological lineages, all of which are essential for a comprehensive literature review. Consequently, this fundamental limitation often results in a fragmented knowledge structure, misleading sentiment interpretation, and inadequate modeling of collective scientific progress. To investigate relation-aware retrieval more deeply, we propose SciNetBench, the first Scientific Network Relation-aware Benchmark for literature retrieval agents. Constructed from a corpus of over 18 million AI papers, our benchmark systematically evaluates three levels of relations: ego-centric retrieval of papers with novel knowledge structures, pair-wise identification of scholarly relationships, and path-wise reconstruction of scientific evolutionary trajectories. Through extensive evaluation of three categories of retrieval agents, we find that their accuracy on relation-aware retrieval tasks often falls below 20%, revealing a core shortcoming of current retrieval paradigms. Notably, further experiments on the literature review tasks demonstrate that providing agents with relational ground truth leads to a substantial 23.4% performance improvement in the review quality, validating the critical importance of relation-aware retrieval. We publicly release our benchmark at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SciNetBench/ to support future research on advanced retrieval systems.

preprint2025arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.