Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

IdeaBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Research Idea Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.02429 v1 pith:NRX2TYJY submitted 2024-10-31 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CE

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CE
keywords llmsresearchideasevaluationframeworkdiscoverygenerationprocess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how people interact with artificial intelligence (AI) systems, achieving state-of-the-art results in various tasks, including scientific discovery and hypothesis generation. However, the lack of a comprehensive and systematic evaluation framework for generating research ideas using LLMs poses a significant obstacle to understanding and assessing their generative capabilities in scientific discovery. To address this gap, we propose IdeaBench, a benchmark system that includes a comprehensive dataset and an evaluation framework for standardizing the assessment of research idea generation using LLMs. Our dataset comprises titles and abstracts from a diverse range of influential papers, along with their referenced works. To emulate the human process of generating research ideas, we profile LLMs as domain-specific researchers and ground them in the same context considered by human researchers. This maximizes the utilization of the LLMs' parametric knowledge to dynamically generate new research ideas. We also introduce an evaluation framework for assessing the quality of generated research ideas. Our evaluation framework is a two-stage process: first, using GPT-4o to rank ideas based on user-specified quality indicators such as novelty and feasibility, enabling scalable personalization; and second, calculating relative ranking based "Insight Score" to quantify the chosen quality indicator. The proposed benchmark system will be a valuable asset for the community to measure and compare different LLMs, ultimately advancing the automation of the scientific discovery process.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ResearchStudio-Idea: An Evidence-Grounded Research-Ideation Skill Suite from ML Conference Outcomes

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Conference accept/reject outcomes yield 15 operational ideation patterns that, as an LLM skill suite, improve automated-judged research-proposal quality over no-skill and generic-skill baselines.

  2. IDRBench: Understanding the Capability of Large Language Models on Interdisciplinary Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    IDRBench is presented as the first benchmark framework consisting of datasets and three evaluation tasks to measure LLMs' ability to perform interdisciplinary research.

  3. IdeaTrail: Full-Process Agent Trajectories for Scientific Ideation

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    IdeaTrail reverse-synthesizes 1,170 grounded multi-turn agent trajectories from real papers via a Generator–Advisor loop for scientific ideation process supervision.

  4. Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM-as-judge scoring of multi-round lateral thinking tasks can be fooled by answer leakage and question substitution, so response-based metrics may overstate reasoning ability.

Pith tools