arXiv:2610.02022v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: AI-based ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of their ideas, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models....
By Noy Sternlicht, Simra Shahid, Peter Jansen, Daniel S. Weld, Pao Siangliulue, Tom Hope
NovGauge is a new benchmark designed to diagnose large language models’ ability to assess scientific paper novelty. It contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, each labeled along three dimensions—task, problem, and method—by experts from ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. The study evaluates 18 LLMs, revealing high hallucination rates and weak evidence grounding, with the best model achieving only 43‑72% verified F1 across dimensions.
By Guoqiang Zhang, Kexin Tan, Ming Zhang, Li Ju, Wenqing Jing, Zhonghan Yue, Jiayi Chen, Shiqiang Wu, Shaofan Liu, Yue Zhang, Yuankai Ying, Yang Shi, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
arXiv:2604. 15145v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task.
By Miri Liu, ChengXiang Zhai
arXiv:2610.33644v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Research ideas are always proposed under resource constraints: a plan must fit the available compute, API credit, and time. Yet evaluations of research...
By Shunchao Zhou, Chang Yang, Jingrui Wang, Shuxin Zhuang, Rundong Wang, Runsheng Yu, Xinrun Wang
arXiv:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review.
By Tianyu Ding, Aditya Nannapaneni, Bingfan Liu, Ling Zhang
TruthInsightBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate automated scientific discovery agents by presenting them with 40 blind tasks drawn from peer‑reviewed studies across ten domains. Each task provides only a neutral objective and frozen data, withholding source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths, forcing agents to determine which claim the data support. A fixed LLM‑based judge scores agents on evidentiary maturity across six dimensions, using 29 artifact‑grounded items, enabling fully automated, repeatable evaluation without human grading.
By Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang, Hao Wang