We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist scientific project planning and proposal evaluation. One-page project plans were independently generated for eight expert-conceived research projects in physics, astrophysics, and cosmology by human researchers and three contemporary LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek; mid-2025 models, used with their default tool access). The resulting 32 proposals were blindly evaluated by four human reviewers and two newer frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT Pro 5.5) using a four-aspect evaluation rubric. Reviewers were also asked to identify whether each proposal was written by a human or an AI. Human reviewers rated human- and AI-written proposals similarly overall, whereas both AI reviewers scored AI-written proposals about one point higher (on a five-point scale) than human-written proposals. Human reviewers correctly identified human- and AI-written proposals 72% and 79% of the time, respectively, while both AI reviewers correctly classified all 32 proposals (100%). These results suggest that current LLMs can produce project plans comparable to human-written ones in the eyes of human reviewers, but that AI reviewers show a systematic preference for AI-generated proposals. Our results suggest caution when deploying LLMs widely in proposal preparation and evaluation.
We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist with literature reviews for scientific research. We perform a controlled study of eight expert-conceived research projects across the areas of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Each project has a defined background and goal, and human experts and AI prompters are asked to perform identical literature review tasks in parallel. We compare the relevant literature selected by humans with that selected by mid-2025 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Gemini). We find the overlap between human- and AI-selected references to be small (<6%), indicating that AI models do not yet reproduce a competent expert search on their own, though they have the potential to complement literature searches by humans. We then assess the reliability and completeness of AI-generated candidate references, distinguishing two types of hallucination: fabrications (references to nonexistent papers) and metadata mismatches (real papers with one or more incorrect fields). We find that while fabricated references make up 3% of the AI-generated references, 64% are real papers with at least one incorrect field (title, author, year, journal, DOI, or link), indicating that the mid-2025 models require systematic verification. However, the performance is significantly improved for the 2026 model ChatGPT Pro 5.5, with a single-project test showing zero fabrication or metadata mismatches.
Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.
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. In this work, we investigate how LLMs can handle the transition from conceptual research ideas to well-structured research plans. Effective research planning not only supports scientists in advancing their research but also represents a crucial capability for the development of autonomous research agents. Despite its importance, the field lacks a systematic understanding of LLMs' research planning capability. To rigorously measure this capability, we introduce the Idea2Plan task and Idea2Plan Bench, a set of benchmarks built from ICML 2025 and Nature Mental Health papers released after major LLM training cutoffs. Each benchmark instance includes a research idea and a grading rubric capturing the key components of valid plans. We further propose Idea2Plan JudgeEval, a complementary benchmark to assess the reliability of LLM-based judges against expert annotations. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves the strongest performance on the benchmark, though substantial headroom remains for improvement. Our study provides new insights into LLMs' capability for research planning and lays the groundwork for future progress.