NoveltyScope: A Multi-Agent Research Assistant for Evidence-Grounded Novelty Assessment of Scientific Papers

To alleviate the heavy burden of paper screening, researchers increasingly rely on existing AI agents, such as AI reviewers or DeepResearch, for paper evaluation and novelty assessment. However, lacking specialized mechanisms for processing scholarly literature, their analyses often produce superficial results with noticeable deficiencies in quality. To bridge this gap, we introduce MemoNoveltyAgent, a multi-agent system designed to generate comprehensive and faithful novelty reports. Beyond retrieving concrete prior-paper evidence via RAG, our system incorporates a high-level abstract memory constructed from large-scale scholarly corpora. This memory organizes research into hierarchical trees to distill field-specific evolutionary trajectories, thereby providing a broader historical context. Furthermore, we decompose papers into discrete novelty points for fine-grained analysis and retrieval, while employing a self-validation mechanism to improve report faithfulness. Finally, to address the evaluation challenges of such open-ended generation tasks, we propose a RAG-augmented checklist evaluation method that enables reliable and evidence-grounded assessments. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MemoNoveltyAgent outperforms GPT-5 DeepResearch by 13.69%. Code and demo are available at https://github.com/SStan1/MemoNoveltyAgent

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences, yet novelty remains a persistent weak point. Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score, making it difficult to diagnose which dimension a model misjudges or whether its evidence is faithful. We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis. The benchmark contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, drawn from two expert sources: ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. Instances are independently labeled along three dimensions: task, problem, and method, capturing application goals, technical challenges, and solution approaches. We propose a cascading diagnostic pipeline that verifies per-dimension correctness, evidence grounding, and logical support. Evaluation of 18 LLMs shows hallucination rates ranging from 0% to 39% across dimensions, and among non-hallucinated correct-positive judgments, over 70% cite evidence fails to logically support the stated reason. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves 43-72% Verified F1 across dimensions, while most models retain less than half of their raw F1 after faithfulness verification. These results suggest that current LLMs remain far from reliable scientific novelty assessment, particularly when correctness is conditioned on faithful evidence grounding.

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.