Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas

Generating novel, feasible, and high-quality research ideas is an important yet challenging task in scientific discovery. Recent Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often ground idea generation with retrieved literature, but the retrieved evidence is usually provided as flat text, such as titles, abstracts, or summaries. Such flat contexts may contain redundant or weakly relevant information, while making cross-paper relations among problems, methods, mechanisms, and findings difficult to identify and trace. To address this challenge, we propose Graph2Idea, a knowledge graph-guided framework for retrieval-augmented scientific idea generation.Graph2Idea first retrieves papers according to the input topic, transforms them into structured knowledge triples, and dynamically constructs a target-centered knowledge graph to make literature relations explicit. It then extracts compact graph-derived contexts that retain target-relevant relational evidence while reducing noisy textual input. Based on these contexts, a two-stage generation process first identifies promising research directions and then guides the LLM to synthesize candidate ideas from graph-grounded evidence. Experiments on a scientific idea generation benchmark show that Graph2Idea outperforms representative baselines under the automatic evaluation protocol. Compared with the strongest baseline scores, it improves Novelty from 0.45 to 0.52, Quality from 0.24 to 0.29, and Feasibility from 0.22 to 0.28. These results suggest that graph-structured evidence helps LLMs generate research ideas through more explicit, compact, and traceable recombination of prior scientific knowledge.

The rapid growth of scientific literature makes it increasingly challenging for researchers to identify novel and impactful ideas, especially across disciplines. Modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer new opportunities for scientific ideation, but how compelling are AI-generated ideas, and how can their quality be improved? Here, we introduce SciMuse, which generates personalized research ideas using a knowledge graph of 58 million papers and a large language model (LLM). A central focus of this work is to understand how interesting these ideas are. Therefore, we conducted a large-scale evaluation in which more than 100 research group leaders -- spanning the natural sciences to the humanities -- rated over 4,400 personalized ideas according to their level of interest. Overall, expert ratings were modest (mean 2.40 on a 5-point scale, most common rating 1), while 24.9% of ideas were rated 4 or 5. We find that supplying concept pairs selected using the knowledge graph does not improve expert-rated interest over a titles-only GPT baseline. High-citation-predicted pairs even showed a weak tendency (1.94$σ$) toward lower interest than random pairs. Nevertheless, graph features can be used to control properties of ideas, and, using this unique evaluation dataset, we show that idea interest can be predicted with both a supervised neural network based on graph features and a zero-shot ranking approach based on an LLM. Our work provides an AI methodology for generating scientific ideas and a large-scale interdisciplinary expert evaluation, paving the way to study and improve difficult-to-measure metrics such as expert-perceived scientific interestingness.

Judging the novelty of research ideas is crucial for advancing science, enabling the identification of unexplored directions, and ensuring contributions meaningfully extend existing knowledge rather than reiterate minor variations. However, given the exponential growth of scientific literature, manually judging the novelty of research ideas through literature reviews is labor-intensive, subjective, and infeasible at scale. Therefore, recent efforts have proposed automated approaches for research idea novelty judgment. Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is typically based on non-standardized human evaluations, hindering large-scale, comparable evaluations. To address this, we introduce RINoBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for large-scale evaluation of research idea novelty judgments. It comprises 1,381 research ideas derived from and judged by human experts as well as nine automated evaluation metrics designed to assess both rubric-based novelty scores and textual justifications of novelty judgments. Using this benchmark, we evaluate several state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on their ability to judge the novelty of research ideas. Our findings reveal that while LLM-generated reasoning closely mirrors human rationales, this alignment does not reliably translate into accurate novelty judgments, which diverge significantly from human gold standard judgments - even among leading reasoning-capable models. Data and code available at: https://github.com/TimSchopf/RINoBench.