Yongsik Seo

Yongsik Seo, Wooseok Jeong, Eunyoung Kim et al.

Users of search-augmented LLMs rely on citations as evidence that responses are grounded in real sources, and rarely verify the cited pages themselves. Millions of queries per day now pass through these systems, making citation quality a silent determinant of whether users are informed or misled-yet existing benchmarks each address one facet in isolation, leaving the joint structure that determines citation trustworthiness unmeasured. We construct CITETRACE, a large-scale dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer: 11,200 real-world queries from 28 communities paired with 112,000 responses from ten models across five providers, yielding 761,495 evaluable citation pairs. We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity, using expert-validated predefined matrices and a five-level fidelity rubric; the framework applies to any system that produces citation-bearing responses. Applying this framework at scale, we identify a systematic pattern we call VERIFIED MISGUIDANCE (VM): models cite real, accessible sources yet fail along one or more dimensions, producing a fidelity-suitability trade-off in which faithful models select inappropriate sources and vice versa. Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources; at the response level, up to 96% of users encounter at least one structurally misleading citation. Provider-level differences explain 88-96% of citation-quality variance, suggesting that source selection is governed more by factors beyond individual model capability than by the LLMs themselves. Together, CITETRACE and its evaluation framework provide the first resource for diagnosing structural citation failures in deployed search-augmented systems.

Sunghwan Kim, Ryang Heo, Yongsik Seo et al.

The proliferation of e-commerce has made web shopping platforms key gateways for customers navigating the vast digital marketplace. Yet this rapid expansion has led to a noisy and fragmented information environment, increasing cognitive burden as shoppers explore and purchase products online. With promising potential to alleviate this challenge, agentic systems have garnered growing attention for automating user-side tasks in web shopping. Despite significant advancements, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate how well agentic systems can curate products in open-web settings. Specifically, they have limited coverage of shopping scenarios, focusing only on simplified single-platform lookups rather than exploratory search. Moreover, they overlook personalization in evaluation, leaving unclear whether agents can adapt to diverse user preferences in realistic shopping contexts. To address this gap, we present AgenticShop, the first benchmark for evaluating agentic systems on personalized product curation in open-web environment. Crucially, our approach features realistic shopping scenarios, diverse user profiles, and a verifiable, checklist-driven personalization evaluation framework. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that current agentic systems remain largely insufficient, emphasizing the need for user-side systems that effectively curate tailored products across the modern web.

Jieyong Kim, Ryang Heo, Yongsik Seo et al.

In the task of aspect sentiment quad prediction (ASQP), generative methods for predicting sentiment quads have shown promising results. However, they still suffer from imprecise predictions and limited interpretability, caused by data scarcity and inadequate modeling of the quadruplet composition process. In this paper, we propose Self-Consistent Reasoning-based Aspect-sentiment quadruple Prediction (SCRAP), optimizing its model to generate reasonings and the corresponding sentiment quadruplets in sequence. SCRAP adopts the Extract-Then-Assign reasoning strategy, which closely mimics human cognition. In the end, SCRAP significantly improves the model's ability to handle complex reasoning tasks and correctly predict quadruplets through consistency voting, resulting in enhanced interpretability and accuracy in ASQP.

Ryang Heo, Yongsik Seo, Junseong Lee et al.

The surge of user-generated online content presents a wealth of insights into customer preferences and market trends. However, the highly diverse, complex, and context-rich nature of such contents poses significant challenges to traditional opinion mining approaches. To address this, we introduce Online Opinion Mining Benchmark (OOMB), a novel dataset and evaluation protocol designed to assess the ability of large language models (LLMs) to mine opinions effectively from diverse and intricate online environments. OOMB provides extensive (entity, feature, opinion) tuple annotations and a comprehensive opinion-centric summary that highlights key opinion topics within each content, thereby enabling the evaluation of both the extractive and abstractive capabilities of models. Through our proposed benchmark, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of which aspects remain challenging and where LLMs exhibit adaptability, to explore whether they can effectively serve as opinion miners in realistic online scenarios. This study lays the foundation for LLM-based opinion mining and discusses directions for future research in this field.