Pant, Pujan, Newpane, Sagar, Sitaula, Hari, Sakhakarmy, Manish · Oct 26, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Researchers adapt LLM-SC for Pashupatinath Temple reviews
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Pujan Pant, Sagar Newpane, Hari Sitaula and Manish Sakhakarmy adapt the -Social Computing (LLM-SC) framework to visitor reviews of Pashupatinath Temple in Nepal. They argue generic extraction schemes may miss rituals, sacred spaces, cultural restrictions and emotionally mixed experiences at living sacred heritage sites. Their GPT-4o extraction prompt uses a 12-type entity taxonomy, four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions; eight entity types are specific to sacred heritage. The authors apply it to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939. Against an adjudicated two-annotator reference for 200 reviews, exact normalized surface-and-type matching gave provisional entity micro-F1 of 28.4%. Aspect-presence F1 was 53.6%, and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%. Human adjudication supported 78.9% of first-listed relation candidates, one per review; the authors caution that this candidate-level rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision. The paper presents a culturally grounded adaptation with component-wise human evaluation, while identifying reproducibility and generalization limitations. The reported scores are provisional and assess particular extraction components; they do not establish how well the approach generalizes beyond the study’s reviews.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 26, 2026 (2026-10-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:04:51.375Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-03T04:45:43.324Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported entity scores are provisional and use exact normalized surface-and-type matching against an adjudicated reference for 200 reviews. The source evaluates a fixed random sample of English-language Tripadvisor reviews about one temple; the excerpt does not report results for other languages or sites. The relation-candidate support rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision. The source names reproducibility and generalization limitations but the supplied abstract does not detail them.
Open question
How would the reported component scores change when evaluated on reviews beyond the 200 used for the adjudicated reference?
Source-stated
The authors argue that generic extraction schemes may miss features of living sacred heritage sites, and adapt LLM-SC for Pashupatinath Temple reviews.
generic schemes may miss rituals, sacred spaces, cultural restrictions and emotionally mixed experiences at living sacred heritage sites. We adapted the LLM-Social Computing (LLM-SC) framework to Pashupatinath Temple
Source-stated
The adaptation uses 12 entity types, four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions, including eight added sacred-heritage types.
a 12-type entity taxonomy (four original LLM-SC types plus eight sacred-heritage types), four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions
Source-stated
The authors applied the extraction prompt to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939.
applied to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939
Source-stated
Against an adjudicated two-annotator reference for 200 reviews, entity micro-F1 was 28.4%, aspect-presence F1 was 53.6%, and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%.
exact normalized surface-and-type matching gave provisional entity scores of 41.0% precision, 21.8% recall and 28.4% micro-F1. Aspect-presence F1 was 53.6% and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%.
Source-stated
Human adjudication supported 78.9% of first-listed relation candidates, but that candidate-level rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision.
Human adjudication supported 153 of 194 first-listed relation candidates (one per review; 78.9%), a candidate-level rate that does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision.
Source-stated
The authors describe the contribution as a culturally grounded adaptation with component-wise human evaluation and explicit reproducibility and generalization limitations.
The contribution is a culturally grounded, domain-specific adaptation with component-wise human evaluation and explicit reproducibility and generalization limitations.
Source and contributor context
Pant, Pujan, Newpane, Sagar, Sitaula, Hari, Sakhakarmy, Manish · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 79fc4b63-39d5-4410-8787-ea9f626d4082.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: cf117bdec45704e2716cdfc93f3b8ca487aa33c429837262b33901fbd356e37c. Source text hash: d8aa99fcd4a598be1b270374a4766d36368f3fa34f30bb3b9bcaac01faab1b04.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z
arXiv cs.AI: Researchers adapt LLM-SC for Pashupatinath Temple reviews
Pujan Pant, Sagar Newpane, Hari Sitaula and Manish Sakhakarmy adapt the -Social Computing (LLM-SC) framework to visitor reviews of Pashupatinath Temple in Nepal. They argue generic extraction schemes may miss rituals, sacred spaces, cultural restrictions and emotionally mixed experiences at living sacred heritage sites. Their GPT-4o extraction prompt uses a 12-type entity taxonomy, four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions; eight entity types are specific to sacred heritage. The authors apply it to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939. Against an adjudicated two-annotator reference for 200 reviews, exact normalized surface-and-type matching gave provisional entity micro-F1 of 28.4%. Aspect-presence F1 was 53.6%, and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%. Human adjudication supported 78.9% of first-listed relation candidates, one per review; the authors caution that this candidate-level rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision. The paper presents a culturally grounded adaptation with component-wise human evaluation, while identifying reproducibility and generalization limitations. The reported scores are provisional and assess particular extraction components; they do not establish how well the approach generalizes beyond the study’s reviews.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 26, 2026 (2026-10-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:04:51.375Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-03T04:45:43.324Z.
Limits
The reported entity scores are provisional and use exact normalized surface-and-type matching against an adjudicated reference for 200 reviews. The source evaluates a fixed random sample of English-language Tripadvisor reviews about one temple; the excerpt does not report results for other languages or sites. The relation-candidate support rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision. The source names reproducibility and generalization limitations but the supplied abstract does not detail them.
Open question
How would the reported component scores change when evaluated on reviews beyond the 200 used for the adjudicated reference?
Source-stated
The authors argue that generic extraction schemes may miss features of living sacred heritage sites, and adapt LLM-SC for Pashupatinath Temple reviews.
generic schemes may miss rituals, sacred spaces, cultural restrictions and emotionally mixed experiences at living sacred heritage sites. We adapted the LLM-Social Computing (LLM-SC) framework to Pashupatinath Temple
Source-stated
The adaptation uses 12 entity types, four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions, including eight added sacred-heritage types.
a 12-type entity taxonomy (four original LLM-SC types plus eight sacred-heritage types), four relation types and nine aspect-sentiment dimensions
Source-stated
The authors applied the extraction prompt to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939.
applied to a fixed random sample of 2,500 English-language Tripadvisor reviews from a processed corpus of 3,939
Source-stated
Against an adjudicated two-annotator reference for 200 reviews, entity micro-F1 was 28.4%, aspect-presence F1 was 53.6%, and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%.
exact normalized surface-and-type matching gave provisional entity scores of 41.0% precision, 21.8% recall and 28.4% micro-F1. Aspect-presence F1 was 53.6% and end-to-end aspect-plus-polarity F1 was 42.6%.
Source-stated
Human adjudication supported 78.9% of first-listed relation candidates, but that candidate-level rate does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision.
Human adjudication supported 153 of 194 first-listed relation candidates (one per review; 78.9%), a candidate-level rate that does not estimate relation recall or whole-graph precision.
Source-stated
The authors describe the contribution as a culturally grounded adaptation with component-wise human evaluation and explicit reproducibility and generalization limitations.
The contribution is a culturally grounded, domain-specific adaptation with component-wise human evaluation and explicit reproducibility and generalization limitations.
Source and contributor context
Pant, Pujan, Newpane, Sagar, Sitaula, Hari, Sakhakarmy, Manish · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 79fc4b63-39d5-4410-8787-ea9f626d4082.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: cf117bdec45704e2716cdfc93f3b8ca487aa33c429837262b33901fbd356e37c. Source text hash: d8aa99fcd4a598be1b270374a4766d36368f3fa34f30bb3b9bcaac01faab1b04.
uncertain · 2026-11-11T00:09:56.003Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 79fc4b63-39d5-4410-8787-ea9f626d4082
attribution — pass: The draft correctly names the four authors (Pant, Newpane, Sitaula, Sakhakarmy) and keeps the argument and results attributed to them. The 'arXiv cs.AI' label matches the feed. The paper's primary listing is cs.CL, cross-listed to cs.AI.
Authors:Pujan Pant, Sagar Newpane, Hari Sitaula, Manish Sakhakarmy
summary — uncertain: The draft never says what the pipeline is for. The abstract's core premise is that LLM pipelines turn visitor reviews into structured data. Without that, a non-specialist cannot tell what 'extraction', 'entity taxonomy' or 'aspect-sentiment dimensions' produce, or why missing rituals matters. Central metrics are also unglossed: micro-F1, precision, recall and exact surface-and-type matching. Entity recall (21.8%) is omitted, though it shows most reference entities were missed. Smallest repair: open with that structured-data sentence, add term tooltips for F1, precision and recall, and keep the precision and recall figures. The question is reasonable.
Large language model (LLM) pipelines can turn visitor reviews into structured data
date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-10-26 matches the v1 submission date. It is not the 30 Oct v2 revision or the 2 Nov feed date.
Submitted on 26 Oct 2026 (v1), last revised 30 Oct 2026 (this version, v2)
support — uncertain: The claims and figures match the abstract. However, the closing sentence says 'The reported scores are provisional,' and the source labels only the entity scores as provisional. The aspect F1 scores and the relation rate are not described that way. Smallest repair: 'The entity scores are provisional...'. The point that the results do not establish generalization is a fair reading of the stated limitations.
exact normalized surface-and-type matching gave provisional entity scores of 41.0% precision, 21.8% recall and 28.4% micro-F1
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page of this paper, which is the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv