arXiv:2610.17439v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The success of autonomous research systems relies on the quality of the scientific hypotheses they generate. Recent studies report that human reviewers...
By Zhihua Liu, Kurt Butler, Damian Machlanski, Danilo Bueno, Sotirios A. Tsaftaris
arXiv:2609.22104v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As automated scientific discovery advances, Large Language Models (LLMs) can now generate research ideas at an unprecedented scale, shifting the bottle...
By Rongcan Pei, Fang Guo, Qinglin Qi, Qi Zhu, Yun Luo, Jianhao Yan, Minjun Zhu, Qiujie Xie, Dehong Zheng, Yue Zhang
RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations) is a large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate how well retrieval systems can support scientific inspiration. It defines relevance through three ideation moves—Address, Broaden, and Specify—each targeting different levels of abstraction in literature retrieval. The benchmark is built from millions of full-text CS papers using a novel discourse-marker distant supervision method, and includes extensive LLM and human vetting to ensure quality.
By Maayan Sharon, Tom Hope
arXiv:2606. 09105v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generating novel, feasible, and high-quality research ideas is an important yet challenging task in scientific discovery.
By Xu Li, Hanzhe Tu, Xun Han
The paper "Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact" explores using delayed signals of scientific uptake—specifically citation-normalized impact—as feedback to steer large language models toward generating high‑impact research ideas. The authors build a dataset of over 100,000 computer science papers, train a reward model to predict citation impact from goal‑idea pairs, and align an idea generator via supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. Evaluation with a reference‑grounded protocol shows that the RL‑tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than baseline models.
By Shubham Kale, Aniketh Garikaparthi, Manasi Patwardhan
arXiv:2610.08781v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training...
By Ziyu Chen, Yilun Zhao, Jiashuo Sun, Yiling Ma, Manasi Patwardhan, Arman Cohan
arXiv:2603.01092v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Scientific discovery is constrained not only by what is true, but by what is cognitively available to researchers. Many directions are cohere...
By Alejandro H. Artiles, Martin Weiss, Levin Brinkmann, Iyad Rahwan, Bernhard Sch\"olkopf, Christopher Pal, Hugo Larochelle, Anirudh Goyal, Nasim Rahaman
arXiv:2510. 27313v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generation novelty is a key indicator of an LLM's ability to generalize, yet measuring it against full pretraining corpora is computationally challenging.
By Philipp Davydov, Ameya Prabhu, Matthias Bethge, Elisa Nguyen, Seong Joon Oh
arXiv:2605.22878v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Artificial intelligence is rapidly entering the core workflows of scientific research. Yet reliable scientific reasoning requires access to accumul...
By Shuofei Qiao, Yunxiang Wei, Busheng Zhang, Mengru Wang, Jiazheng Fan, Huadong Jian, Bin Wu, Shumin Deng, Yida Xue, Zifan Cheng, Xiang Chen, Dan Zhang, Junfeng Fang, Ningyu Zhang, Keyan Ding, Qiang Zhang, Jeff Z. Pan, Emine Yilmaz, Huajun Chen
Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training language models to perform this form of literature-...
arXiv:2602. 14367v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation.
By Shuofei Qiao, Yunxiang Wei, Xuehai Wang, Bin Wu, Boyang Xue, Ningyu Zhang, Hossein A. Rahmani, Yanshan Wang, Qiang Zhang, Keyan Ding, Jeff Z. Pan, Huajun Chen, Emine Yilmaz
arXiv:2607. 01233v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference.
By Ziyu Chen, Yilun Zhao, Arman Cohan