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:2608. 03283v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice.
DocuTeam is a mixed‑initiative multi‑agent discussion system that allows both users and agents to start and steer conversations around evolving documents. Agents monitor changes to the document and proactively initiate or redirect discussions, while users can shape the dialogue or adopt agent suggestions. In a within‑subjects study with 20 participants, DocuTeam produced outcomes that were rated as more novel, relevant, and specific compared to a baseline, without increasing cognitive load.
arXiv:2606. 10402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific discovery is often a collective process: researchers share partial results, inspect failed attempts, and build on each other's ideas over long time horizons.
arXiv:2606. 12736v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents are increasingly being developed to accelerate scientific discovery, yet their practical capabilities in real research settings remain poorly understood.
IDRBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate the interactive capabilities of deep research agents that use large language models. It introduces controlled opportunities for clarification within a common workflow, comparing autonomous and interactive trajectories by measuring task‑specific report alignment and interaction cost. Experiments on 100 tasks with seven LLMs show that interaction consistently improves alignment, though its effectiveness varies depending on the agents’ questions and feedback integration.
arXiv:2606. 26614v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents enable natural language interaction for scientific visualization (SciVis).
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:2609.07611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Exi...
arXiv:2607. 15545v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents excel at writing articles, coding and information retrieval.
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
arXiv:2603. 02070v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise.
arXiv:2603. 01421v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While large language models accelerate scientific discovery, existing agents face severe limitations in adaptability, domain generalization, and multimodal scalability, often struggling to autonomously process raw, domain-specific experimental data.