Ideation Arena is a battle-style platform that evaluates research ideas generated by large language models (LLMs) and research agents through pairwise human assessment. The system builds shared literature contexts, collects over 6,000 double-blind comparisons from 105 computer science researchers, and constructs an Elo rating leaderboard to rank proposal-stage expert preferences. It also introduces Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark to test whether automated evaluators align with human preferences, finding that current LLM judges achieve at best 72.56% Soft Accuracy on overall quality.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
arXiv:2510. 24891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields.
arXiv:2606. 07462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably assess scientific hypotheses by using a logit-based energy scoring method that leverages the model’s intrinsic confidence. Across 1,323 papers in 12 disciplines, this intrinsic scoring achieved a 33.0% Hit@1 rate, outperforming a prompted listwise ranking approach that scored 16.6%. The best result, a 1‑billion‑parameter model with logit-based energy scoring, reached 53.1% Hit@1, suggesting that confidence‑based evaluation could improve trustworthy AI‑enabled scientific discovery.
IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.
arXiv:2608. 03283v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice.
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice. Researchers commonly rely on small-group discussions or one-to-one interactions with a single large language model, yet these approaches often expose them to only a limited range of perspectives and directions.
arXiv:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
arXiv:2606. 13608v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.
arXiv:2409. 11363v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research.