arXiv AI

LigBench: A Unified and Human-Aligned Benchmark for LLM-based Research Idea Generation

arXiv:2608. 13136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), research idea generation has attracted increasing attention.

arXiv AI
Jun 12

InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem

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 Computation and Language
Aug 27

IDEAlign: Comparing Ideas of Large Language Models to Domain Expert

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.

By Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut, Mei Tan, Dorottya Demszky
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 17

Idea2Plan: Exploring AI-Powered Research Planning

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.

By Jin Huang, Silviu Cucerzan, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Ryen W. White
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Do LLMs Know a Good Hypothesis When They See One? Logit-Based Energy Scoring Outperforms Prompted LLM-as-Judge for Scientific Hypothesis Ranking

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.

By Swati Rajwal, Sanjay Das, Tirthankar Ghosal
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Generating Interesting Scientific Ideas using Knowledge Graphs and LLMs: Evaluations with 100 Research Group Leaders

The paper introduces SciMuse, an AI system that generates personalized research ideas by combining a knowledge graph of 58 million papers with a large language model. A large-scale evaluation involving over 100 research group leaders across disciplines rated more than 4,400 ideas, yielding modest overall interest scores but showing that 24.9% were rated highly. The study also demonstrates that graph-derived features can predict idea interest and can be used to control idea properties, offering a new methodology for generating and assessing scientific ideas.

By Xuemei Gu, Mario Krenn
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 3

Self-Evolving Deep Research via Joint Generation and Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly adopted in daily applications, with deep research standing out as a particularly important capability. Unlike traditional question-answering (QA) tasks, deep research report generation lacks definitive ground-truth, making reward design inherently unverifiable and limiting effective reinforcement learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models

The paper examines whether existing automatic methods can reliably assess creativity in text produced by large language models (LLMs). By collecting human ratings on 11 creativity dimensions for both human and AI short stories, the authors compare these judgments with automated metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The results show a significant misalignment: automated metrics and LLM judges favor AI-generated stories and show near-zero correlation with human assessments, revealing fundamental limitations in current computational approaches to evaluating creative text.

By Alessandro Tutone, Giorgio Franceschelli, Mirco Musolesi