Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces MUSES, a benchmark designed for prospective intellectual-roots retrieval across a comprehensive corpus of 2.33 million papers, featuring 140,000 test instances categorized by familiarity. The benchmark reveals significant performance drops in retrieval accuracy as the familiarity and functional complexity of citations increase, with a notable 3.1x decline in hit rates from familiar to less familiar citations. Additionally, the study highlights the distinct roles of rhetorical and author-endorsed citations, suggesting that current retrieval systems may overlook critical but less popular works that influence scientific discovery.
Retrieval systems miss nearly 70% of potential intellectual roots when shifting from familiar to unfamiliar citations, underscoring a critical gap in scientific literature discovery.
Scientific discovery depends on finding prior literature that shapes what comes next. Existing retrieval systems optimize for relevance and popularity, often favoring central papers over less familiar works that later prove generative. We introduce \textbf{MUSES}, a million-instance benchmark for prospective intellectual-roots retrieval over a fixed 2.33M-paper corpus, with roughly 140K test instances per familiarity tier. To our knowledge, it is the first prospective benchmark at this scale with a shared retrieval task and author-confirmed paper-level root labels. Alongside it, \textbf{CiteRoots} pairs a scalable rhetorical layer over local citation text (LLM judge $魏= 0.896$ versus human gold) with a paper-level author-endorsed layer ($n = 1{,}518$ generative-inspiration pairs from 753 focal papers). MUSES organizes difficulty along two axes: a \emph{familiarity} axis spanning CiteNext, CiteNew, and CiteNew-Isolated, and a \emph{functional} axis spanning broad citations, rhetorical roots, and author-endorsed roots. Across 9 method classes, a lean multi-centroid retriever built on SPECTER2 is strongest. Hit@100 falls from 0.534 on CiteNext to 0.424 on CiteNew, 0.205 on rhetorical CiteNew, and 0.171 on author-endorsed CiteNew, a $3.1\times$ decline. In a registered eight-lens full-test audit, roughly half of broad-tier test instances remain unsolved at K=1{,}000. Rhetorical role and author endorsement are distinct: the same judge agrees with endorsement at $魏= 0.037$. We release MUSES, both CiteRoots layers, and a distilled open companion judge for future work on prospective retrieval and intellectual roots.
