The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in accelerating scientific discovery has garnered increasing attention, with a key focus on constructing research agents endowed with innovative capability, i.e., the ability to autonomously generate novel and significant research ideas. Existing approaches predominantly rely on sophisticated prompt engineering and lack a systematic training paradigm. To address this, we propose DeepInnovator, a training framework designed to trigger the innovative capability of LLMs. Our approach comprises two core components. (1) Standing on the shoulders of giants''. We construct an automated data extraction pipeline to extract and organize structured research knowledge from a vast corpus of unlabeled scientific literature. (2) Conjectures and refutations''. We introduce a ``Next Idea Prediction'' training paradigm, which models the generation of research ideas as an iterative process of continuously predicting, evaluating, and refining plausible and novel next idea. Both automatic and expert evaluations demonstrate that our DeepInnovator-14B significantly outperforms untrained baselines, achieving win rates of 80.53%-93.81%, and attains performance comparable to that of current leading LLMs. This work provides a scalable training pathway toward building research agents with genuine, originative innovative capability, and will open-source the dataset to foster community advancement. Source code and data are available at: https://github.com/HKUDS/DeepInnovator.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The DeepInnovator Framework. Top: We construct training data from arXiv through a carefully designed automated data extraction and synthesis pipeline (Sec. 4.1 ). Bottom: We perform RL training via a meticulously designed next-idea prediction task ( 4.2 ), coupled with a decoupled reward and critique mechanism (Sec. 4.3 ).
Figure 2: Evaluation results of ideas generated by eight models across six rubrics. DeepInnovator outperforms Qwen-14B-Instruct on all dimensions and demonstrates competitive capability against leading LLMs.
Metric
Qwen-14B-Instruct
Deepseek-r1
Gemini-2.5-pro
GPT-4o
Minimax-M2.1
Qwen3-max
Grok-4.1
Novelty
80.53%
47.79%
15.93%
49.56%
59.29%
32.74%
37.17%
Feasibility
87.61%
23.01%
18.58%
11.50%
10.62%
19.47%
10.62%
Effectiveness
92.92%
45.13%
43.36%
76.11%
50.44%
66.37%
43.36%
Detailedness
93.81%
59.29%
68.14%
44.25%
61.06%
91.15%
45.13%
Table 1: Win rate results of DeepInnovator vs Other Models. Novelty : whether the approach is innovative; Feasibility : whether it can be practically implemented; Effectiveness : whether the problem can be solved; Detailedness : whether the proposal is complete and specific. Bold indicate that DeepInnovator wins (i.e., win rate > 50%).
Figure 3: Comparison of win rates between ideas generated by DeepInnovator at each step and the initial idea (step 1). Our training method effectively enhances DeepInnovator’s ability to refine research ideas.
Domain
Metric
Much Better
Better
Worse
Much Worse
Both Bad
Avg. Winrate
Law
Novelty
0 / 0
9 / 7
3 / 6
1 / 0
0 / 0
69.2% / 53.8%
Feasibility
1 / 0
5 / 4
3 / 7
1 / 1
3 / 1
60.0% / 33.3%
Effectiveness
2 / 1
5 / 4
2 / 3
1 / 3
3 / 2
70.0% / 45.5%
Detailedness
7 / 1
3 / 4
2 / 5
1 / 0
0 / 3
76.9% / 50.0%
Education
Novelty
3 / 0
9 / 9
2 / 5
1 / 1
0 / 0
80.0% / 60.0%
Feasibility
3 / 0
5 / 0
5 / 7
1 / 3
1 / 5
57.1% / 0.0%
Table 2: Winrate results annotated by human experts. “Much Better” or “Much Worse” indicates that the expert thinks that DeepInnovator is much better/worse than Qwen-14B-Instruct/GPT-4o. The value before the slash “/” denotes DeepInnovator vs Qwen-14B-Instruct, and the value after the slash denotes DeepInnovator vs GPT-4o. The values represent the sum of annotators’ judgments. Bold indicate that DeepInnovator wins (i.e., win rate > 50%).
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Parameter
Value
Dataset Statistics
Training set size (by category)
cs: 433, math: 194, q-fin: 181, stat: 204
Validation set size (by category)
cs: 51, math: 22, q-fin: 18, stat: 20
Training Data
Train batch size
16
Max prompt length
8192 tokens
Appendix
Table A1: Hyperparameters used in DeepInnovator.
Rubric
Description
Detailed, specific solution
Does the part of the plan relevant to satisfying this rubric item include fully specified details on how to implement it? There should be no claims of handling something without actually doing so, no vague terms, ambiguity, or lack of clarity. The description should use simple, easy-to-understand language.
No overlooked flaws or weaknesses
Are there any important overlooked flaws or weaknesses in the part of the plan addressing this rubric item that would invalidate its claimed satisfaction of the criterion?
Well-justified rationale
Is the part of the plan relevant to this rubric item well-motivated and justified? For example, does it provide convincing arguments that the chosen approach is better than simpler alternatives or competing hypotheses?
Cost and effort efficient
Does the plan address this rubric item in a cost- and effort-efficient manner, avoiding unnecessary complexity? Consider whether a less resource-intensive or less labor-demanding solution could achieve comparable effectiveness.
No ethical issues
Does this part of the plan pose any potential for negative societal impact or raise ethical concerns (e.g., bias, privacy violations, manipulation, or unfair outcomes)?
Consistent with overall plan
Is this component of the plan logically consistent with the rest of the proposed strategy? Ensure it does not contradict other stated assumptions, methods, or objectives elsewhere in the plan.
Appendix
Table A2: Evaluation Rubrics.
ID
Reason
Model Generating the Issue
Law1
Incomplete idea generation
Qwen-14B-Instruct
Law2
Incomplete idea generation
Qwen-14B-Instruct
Law3
Incomplete idea generation
Qwen-14B-Instruct
Law4
Generated idea is a hybrid of law and computer science
DeepInnovator
Biotech1
Incomplete idea generation
Qwen-14B-Instruct
Appendix
Table A3: Issue Table
Position
Count
Postdoc
1
PhD
6
Mphil
2
Appendix
Table A4: Positions of the idea judge participants.
Institution
Count
The University of Hong Kong (HKU)
3
Zhejiang University (ZJU)
3
Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard (Broad Institute)
1
Swiss Federal Technology Institute of Lausanne (EPFL)
1
The California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
1
Appendix
Table A5: Institutions of the idea judge participants.
Real Ideas
Fake Ideas
Accuracy (%)
80.77
75.12
Appendix
Table A6: Discrimination Accuracy of Qwen-plus on arXiv ideas (Real) vs. Qwen-14B-Instruct Generated Ideas (Fake)