Research Idea Generation

Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training language models to perform this form of literature-grounded ideation remains challenging, as existing approaches based on prompting or feedback lack structured supervision for how papers should be synthesized. We introduce IdeaAnchor, a paradigm for training LLMs to perform research ideation using structured specifications as privileged signals. Each IdeaAnchor instance encodes how each input paper should be synthesized into a successful idea, including their functional roles, relationships, and target synthesis criteria. We build this paradigm by mining instances from published papers, capturing how real ideas emerge from prior literature. We then train models via demonstration, self-distillation, and reinforcement learning, and further enhance generation with retrieval at inference time. Experiments show consistent improvements in ideation quality. Our analysis reveals a functional decomposition: anchor-based training strengthens creative synthesis, retrieval enhances detail elaboration, and combining both yields the best performance.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate biomedical hypotheses, but it remains unclear whether they truly reason from scientific evidence or simply produce convincing-sounding ideas. To study this, we combine three major biological databases: the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), Rhea, and UniProt, into a unified biochemical knowledge graph and construct a benchmark of 550 paths connecting enzyme sources to rare disease endpoints, yielding 13,200 hypotheses from six LLMs under four conditions varying the biological information each model receives: source enzyme only, full biological path, or source and disease endpoint only. Hypotheses are scored using an expert-derived five-criterion rubric on a 1-5 scale per criterion. We find that models given both the source and disease endpoint often produce the highest-scoring hypotheses, showing that LLMs can generate compelling ideas from minimal information. However, these hypotheses are less grounded in the evidence. In contrast, models given the full biological path generate hypotheses more consistent with known mechanistic relationships. We call this evidence-disciplined reasoning. To confirm this effect, we shuffled intermediate path steps while keeping endpoints fixed. Evidence grounding dropped significantly (delta = -0.793, p < 0.001), confirming models genuinely used path structure during reasoning. Our findings show that knowledge graphs support hypothesis generation in two ways: they identify biological endpoint pairs absent from the literature, and their mechanistic paths guide how LLMs reason between them.

Frontier LLMs are increasingly capable of conducting automated research, yet their creativity in this setting has not been systematically evaluated. We propose a set of metrics to evaluate creativity along the two dimensions of valueness and novelty. Valueness assesses whether each proposed idea is useful, while novelty is evaluated from three perspectives: whether the same idea has appeared before (Exact-Match P-Novelty), whether the modified variable or variable combination has been explored before (Variable-level P-Novelty), which reflects the breadth of research-space exploration, and whether the proposed idea is explicitly attributed to external knowledge in the model's reasoning (H-Novelty). Our evaluation shows that the models achieve relatively similar Valueness and Exact-Match P-Novelty scores, while differing substantially in Variable-level P-Novelty. H-Novelty is also consistently high among the models for which it can be evaluated. Notably, further correlation and idea-level performance analyses reveal a strong positive correlation between Variable-level P-Novelty and research performance.

Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Existing evaluations largely assess it by asking models to generate ideas from a static, curated set of reference papers. That passive setup departs from the retrieval-and-reasoning workflow of modern AI scientists, and it becomes less discriminative as models improve. We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a multidisciplinary benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration. We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines, using a multidimensional, literature-verified scoring framework whose critics assess originality against retrieved prior art. Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models. Performance scales about twice as fast as under static observation, and the exploration gain is capability-gated, favoring the strongest models over the weakest. The gain reflects better grounding, improving feasibility, clarity, and specificity while leaving measured originality unchanged under our critics. We further explore Scientific World Modeling, a generation-time loop that refines a draft hypothesis through structured thought experiments. It benefits mid-capability models, and its impact diminishes among frontier models that appear to have internalized such reasoning patterns already. AgentIdeaBench gives future work on scientific ideation a measurement basis suited to the agent era.

Large language models increasingly generate research ideas, yet judging their novelty or feasibility at generation time does not establish whether they anticipate subsequent work. We introduce IdeaForecastBench to evaluate research idea forecasting. Given a community's literature up to a cutoff, a system produces up to five ranked ideas, which are evaluated against later papers. The benchmark comprises 624 rolling episodes across 52 topics, with a fixed retrieve-then-judge protocol and separately reported results from two judges. We compare five history-compression strategies across GPT-4.1, Qwen2.5-7B/14B, and Qwen3.5-9B, together with a learned Mode-Decomposition Forecaster (MDF). Under the primary GPT-4.1-mini judge, Summary improves on Direct in Hit@5 and Precision@5 across all four backbones. Qwen2.5 scores above GPT-4.1, whereas Qwen3.5 scores below it. An outcome-blind assessment finds that Qwen2.5 produces broader forecasts, but does not identify how much breadth contributes to its advantage. Threshold and judge diagnostics further clarify the limits of interpreting realization as precise anticipation. IdeaForecastBench provides a common task for studying which research ideas a community subsequently pursues and how reliably this outcome can be measured.

Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard of proposal-stage expert preferences in computer science under a shared closed-context protocol. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they still cannot reliably reproduce expert preferences, with the best judge reaching 72.56% Soft Accuracy on Overall Quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://github.com/foss12138/Research-Ideation-Arena.

Autonomous research systems are increasingly capable of executing long research workflows, yet automation alone does not ensure that the resulting process remains scientifically grounded. We introduce AutoResearch, a two-stage system that connects Idea Generation with Idea Execution to address both how research ideas are formed and how they are reliably established through experimentation. In Idea Generation, AutoResearch continuously integrates emerging research signals with accumulated domain knowledge, identifies transferable mechanistic insights, and uses multi-model generation and cross-review to produce grounded, testable research plans. In Idea Execution, coordinated agents decompose these plans into experiments, iteratively implement and diagnose them, and employ independent evidence-based review before accepting research conclusions. Across representative settings in cross-modal retrieval, systems optimization, and benchmark-driven machine learning, AutoResearch turns generated ideas into measurable progress, detects and corrects unreliable experimental results, and makes evidence-conditioned decisions to continue, revise, or terminate research directions. For example, on RSICD benchmark, an AutoResearch-generated idea improves mean Recall from 32.84 to 34.69, while recording only 5 audit-confirmed issue events compared with 11-27 for other autonomous research systems. These results demonstrate a research process in which meaningful insight is grounded before experimentation and conclusions are grounded before acceptance: Insight In, Hallucination Out.

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), research idea generation has attracted increasing attention. Existing approaches enable LLMs to retrieve relevant literature and propose novel ideas for research areas. However, current evaluation practices for idea generation remain fragmented and lack objective standards, often relying on direct LLM scoring, which limits their ability to provide unified and reliable assessments across a coherent distribution of generated ideas. To address this challenge, we propose LigBench, an automated evaluation benchmark that enables fine-grained and reliable evaluation of AI research ideas, consistently applicable across different generation distributions. In addition, we introduce PAIR-IQ, a dataset tailored for training pairwise idea judgment models and serving as an auxiliary reference to support more objective comparative evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LigBench achieves stable and interpretable evaluations, significantly improving alignment with expert judgments. Furthermore, models trained on PAIR-IQ exhibit enhanced ranking accuracy and robustness, establishing a principled standard for scalable and objective research idea assessment.

Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature. Existing methods either treat papers as unstructured context or model scholarly evolution as isolated citation chains, overlooking interactions among research trajectories. We propose Tree-of-Ideas (ToI), a two-stage framework. EvoTrace reconstructs branching scholarly trajectories from citations, tracking evolving methods, resolved problems, and gaps. EvoAgent then reasons across trajectories to identify convergent problems and complementary solutions, generating grounded research ideas. Across six AI research topics, ToI achieves the highest score among automatic methods (6.27 vs. 5.36 for the strongest baseline on a 10-point scale), with strong Novelty (6.36) and Groundedness (7.00). Also, its score approaches that of human-paper references (6.29), demonstrating the value of cross-path evolutionary reasoning.

Generative AI used as a capable servant has greatly accelerated intellectual work, but it also risks eroding human epistemic agency by encouraging uncritical acceptance of AI-generated reasoning. This creates a need for mechanisms that preserve human agency by augmenting metacognition during AI-assisted intellectual work. To address this, we propose the Synthesis-Analysis Reciprocity Model, which views intellectual construction as a reciprocal interaction between Synthesis, which combines components into an artifact, and Analysis, which critically evaluates them against objective indicators and constrains subsequent synthesis. Grounded in this model, we present the Vibe Compiler, a research-logic compiler that helps researchers transform vague ideas (Vibes) into coherent research logic. The system compiles these ideas using a research paper ontology of sixteen academic parameters. Compilation failures indicate missing logical components; rather than filling them autonomously, the system prompts researchers with reflective questions that encourage them to develop the missing reasoning. The framework characterizes structural gaps along two dimensions: cognitive function (Synthesis vs. Analysis) and executing agent (human vs. AI), yielding four origin types that identify where breakdowns arise. Our design emphasizes AI probing its own synthesized output to stimulate human metacognition, encouraging researchers to remain managers who critically direct and validate AI-generated reasoning rather than passive recipients. Experience with a prototype built on NotebookLM and Gemini suggests that effective AI-assisted reasoning depends less on sophisticated prompting than on the knowledge structure provided to the AI. This paper was developed using the proposed Vibe Compiler.

Benchmarking the ability of AI scientists to generate novel ideas is notoriously difficult. Existing benchmarks in this field have made progress in evaluating scientific reasoning and research replication, but often rely on synthetic tasks or retrospective targets, which may be confounded by prior exposure. We hypothesize that complex, adversarial, fast-moving real-world domains where expert practitioners independently generate observable outputs can provide a practical solution to fill this gap and evaluate the capabilities needed for AI scientists, including reasoning, novelty, and hypothesis formulation. We instantiate this framework in two structurally different domains, Formula 1 (F1), where models ideate around car design concepts for the 2026 season, and real pre-season innovations provide a ground truth, and Magic: The Gathering (MTG), where models propose decks from a recently updated card pool and are evaluated against 19 Pro Tour (PT) decklists. Across both domains, models produce plausible outputs, but few align with real-world expert solutions. In F1, the best model, GPT-5.2 matched 10 of 40 real innovations with 166 ideas proposed across runs. In MTG, the best deck from Gemini 3 Flash recovered 5 of 7 new-set cards from the third-place PT deck, and across all 108 decks, the cards models selected most often were also the cards most widely adopted by PT decks (Spearman $ρ= 0.74$, $p = 0.0003$). These results suggest that a key capability gap for AI scientists is not idea generation, but filtering, prioritization, and coherent novelty.

AI-assisted research ideation has emerged as a promising paradigm for accelerating scientific discovery, with systems now capable of generating research directions conditioned on papers, topics, or lightweight researcher contexts. Yet current systems largely optimize individual suggestions in isolation. This leaves two blind spots. First, coarse researcher representations may elicit mainstream directions that appear broadly feasible, but lack sufficient researcher-specific grounding. Second, independent recommendations can concentrate a community's portfolio around recurring high-probability themes. To address these blind spots, we propose DivAlign, a four-stage pipeline for alignment-preserving de-homogenization. DivAlign extracts fine-grained researcher profiles, generates profile-conditioned candidate directions, scores them along three alignment dimensions (Executability, Comprehensibility, and Growth Potential), and surfaces researcher-local directions while reducing redundancy across the community portfolio. On a benchmark we construct from 95 AI researchers across five subfields, DivAlign reduces community-level redundancy while preserving researcher-direction fit. Compared with coarse single-shot ideation, it lowers average pairwise similarity from 0.331 to 0.294 and nearest-neighbor similarity from 0.704 to 0.608. Compared with the independent top-choice variant, DivAlign reduces nearest-neighbor similarity from 0.663 to 0.608 while retaining 99.9% of the researcher-direction fit score. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ruixxxx/DivAlign.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly automated the process of scientific discovery over the past few years. However, existing systems share one core limitation: they generate and optimize ideas independently for either Quality or Diversity. This often leads to the generation of ideas in close proximity to one another or to a large set of trivial, unsound, or unclear concepts. In this work, we instead argue that research ideation should be treated as a conjunction of both objectives and framed as a Quality-Diversity (QD) search. In line with this perspective, we introduce IDEAgent, a multi-agent framework that manages the evolution of ideas through lineages. We jointly drive Quality using multi-objective feedback for dedicated repair and refinement, while Diversity is achieved through lightweight sequential memory and explicit comparison against completed ideas, their historical ancestors, and rejected proposals. To systematically evaluate this QD conjunction, we develop Yield, a joint metric that computes the largest set of mutually diverse ideas that satisfy a predetermined quality threshold. Finally, through evaluations across 32 topics spanning 8 domains of Computer Science, we show that IDEAgent outperforms the best baseline by 3.89x on Yield, while achieving non-zero Yield on 8x more topics. We further corroborate these findings through an analysis of quality improvements, showing that repair and refinement are crucial for building logical rigor and clarity while preserving non-obviousness. To encourage future research on QD-search-based ideation, we open-source IDEAgent at https://github.com/declare-lab/IDEAgent.

Scientific ideation unfolds over multiple stages, including literature search, paper reading, tool use, claim checking, cross-paper synthesis, brainstorming, rejection of weak directions, and iterative writing. Yet most existing resources capture isolated components or final artifacts rather than the process connecting them. We introduce IdeaTrail, a dataset of 1,170 multi-turn trajectories for scientific ideation and proposal generation. Each trajectory follows a research process from evidence gathering to either idea selection or proposal construction, jointly recording tool use, acquired evidence, intermediate artifacts, and reasoning. IdeaTrail is synthesized from human-selected research papers and proposal artifacts through a Generator--Advisor loop. The Generator produces the visible sequence of actions, observations, and artifact edits, while the Advisor uses the full generation context to check grounding, causal order, naturalness, and leakage from hidden targets. This reverse-to-forward design keeps trajectories aligned with real scientific artifacts while retaining the uncertainty, evidence use, and staged convergence characteristic of research practice. IdeaTrail provides both reusable process supervision and a general recipe for constructing scientific-research-agent data.

Scientific ideas rarely start from a blank page. They inherit mechanisms, repair known limitations, and recombine pieces of earlier work, much like biological genomes. Current benchmarks still say little about whether AI systems can follow this inheritance structure. We present IdeaGene-Bench (IG-Bench), a benchmark for scientific lineage reasoning and lineage-grounded idea generation. IG-Bench is organized around the IdeaGene framework: each paper or proposal is represented as a set of minimal, typed, evidence-grounded Idea Genome objects, and a GenomeDiff aligns these objects to record inheritance, mutation, loss, external import, and novel insertion under six operational evolutionary dynamics. The benchmark contains 1,961 golden lineage traces, 1,085 curated Idea Genome objects, and 920 pairwise GenomeDiff records across 10 scientific domains. It supports two evaluations. IG-Exam (42 task types, 1,029 instances) tests closed-form lineage reasoning across Idea Genome abstraction, inheritance tracing, evolutionary reasoning, and lineage verification. IG-Arena evaluates generation with a lineage-conditioned Population-Evolution Score(PES), asking whether a proposal can be inserted as a coherent descendant of a given lineage population: it should inherit the right Idea Genome objects, vary meaningfully from nearby work, and offer selection value for future research. Experiments on 14 LLM-based scientists expose a compositional bottleneck. The strongest system reaches only 27.3% exact accuracy on lineage reasoning, and structured lineage context reshuffles system rankings rather than helping every participant uniformly.

Large language models have made research ideation increasingly accessible, yet effective idea development requires more than generating candidate directions. Researchers must ground a problem in current literature, identify meaningful bottlenecks, differentiate from existing solutions, and evaluate risks before committing to implementation. We present ResearchStudio-Idea as a reusable skill suite for this first mile of research ideation. The suite includes Paper-Search, a standalone multi-source literature search skill; Scoop-Check, a standalone prior-art collision checker for novelty claims; and IdeaSpark, the end-to-end skill that composes evidence grounding, pattern-guided generation, collision retrieval, audit, and idea-card rendering into one workflow. IdeaSpark is constructed from a corpus of 1,947 machine learning conference papers collected from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS between 2021 and 2025, including Oral papers, a separately tracked high-citation subset, and rejected submissions. Analysis of these outcomes reveals 31 recurring ideation sub-patterns, consolidated into 15 reusable ideation patterns. Each pattern is operationalized as a structured card containing research contexts, bottleneck types, differentiation strategies, supporting precedents, and common failure modes. Given a research problem and an evidence bundle, IdeaSpark evaluates evidence readiness, reconstructs the surrounding research context, identifies unresolved bottlenecks, selects relevant patterns, instantiates one candidate direction, retrieves potentially conflicting prior work, and performs outcome-informed auditing. This workflow transforms reusable ideation patterns into traceable research proposals. Blind automated-judge evaluations show that IdeaSpark consistently produces stronger research proposals than no-skill and generic-skill baselines while maintaining competitive novelty.

Large language models have recently been explored for scientific hypothesis generation, but most prior work relies on unstructured literature and free-form textual claims. We present a pipeline for Earth observation that grounds hypothesis generation directly in the NASA Earth Observation Knowledge Graph. A heterogeneous graph neural network trained on historical co-usage relations ranks candidate dataset pairings, and a three-agent LLM pipeline filters, generates, and evaluates structured research hypotheses. Applied to 1,475 NASA datasets, the system produces 160 hypotheses spanning multiple Earth-science domains, including ecohydrology, glaciology, aerosol--cloud interactions, vegetation phenology, and stratospheric chemistry. Model-predicted novel dataset pairings are rated nearly as plausible as held-out real co-usages from the literature, indicating that the pipeline surfaces scientifically coherent yet unexplored combinations. A 222 factorial experiment across GPT-5.2 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 shows that hypothesis rankings remain stable, while absolute scores depend strongly on judge identity, highlighting limitations of single-judge LLM evaluation.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

Autonomous AI Research promises to accelerate the scientific progress of machine learning. To realise this goal, current Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents need to go beyond just writing code, to mastering the exploration of simultaneously performant, diverse and novel ideas. To this end, we introduce Heuresis, a framework that abstracts the research pipeline into a set of general and composable primitives, enabling open-ended scientific exploration in machine learning research. We implement six search strategies: a greedy baseline, two archive-based (MAP-Elites, Go-Explore), one evolutionary (Islands), and two divergent (Curiosity, Omni), and evaluate them across three axes (Quality, Diversity, and Novelty) on three domains (LLM Pretraining, On-Policy RL, and Model Unlearning), totalling 3,222 scored runs. We find that completely novel ideas are rare. No idea across our scored runs is rated as "Original", and only a few achieve only "Minor Similarity" to prior work. Moreover, novel ideas never approach the highest-performing known-recipe scores. Across all six strategies and three domains, only one such idea lands in the top-10 by quality. We also observed agents resorting to a variety of reward-hacking techniques during execution (40 confirmed fabrications across 1,628 scored runs), and detecting them was necessary to keep the search faithful to the task. Our results show that while current search and Quality-Diversity strategies enable us to steer where the generated ideas land on the quality, diversity, and novelty axes, they do not expand the quality-novelty frontier. Bridging this gap is the open challenge towards the ultimate goal of perpetual, autonomous scientific progress. Code is available at github.com/a-antoniades/Heuresis.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

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.

Modern artificial intelligence excels at prediction but cannot explain. From large language models to AI-for-science systems, today's machines answer what by recombining patterns already present in the human literature, yet they cannot reason out why a phenomenon must arise from underlying principles even though explanation, not prediction, lies at the heart of scientific discovery. Here we ask whether the structure of scientific explanation can be operationalized to guide how a machine generates hypotheses. We introduce DN-Hypo-Pipeline, a hypothesis-generation framework that adopts a layered, explanation-theoretic scaffold: Hempel's deductive-nomological (DN) model supplies the output form and deductive validity of a hypothesis, Salmon's causal-process account supplies an organizing constraint on where to search for the governing laws, and Armstrong's view of laws as relations between universals supplies the bridge from a phenomenon's constituent processes to the laws that may be associated with it. Rather than searching the space of what has been written, the framework searches the space of what principles govern a phenomenon: given an explanandum, it abstracts the universals instantiated in the phenomenon's formation process, retrieves the laws relating those universals, and deductively reconstructs a new, testable explanation. Evaluated in data-science modeling and judged by both LLMs and human experts, hypotheses generated through this principled reasoning significantly outperform those from direct prompting. Crucially, we translated the two highest-scoring hypotheses into novel algorithms one that reduces the Transformer's theoretical complexity with only minimal performance loss, and another that achieves competitive accuracy with substantially fewer parameters.

The rapid pace of scientific publishing has made the identification and synthesis of high-impact work an increasingly urgent challenge. We introduce MIRAI (Multi-year Inference of Research trends and Academic Impact), a deep learning framework that predicts paper impact using only it's title, abstract, and publication date. We train MIRAI on the arXiv academic graph to predict 5-year PageRank and citation counts, achieving Spearman's $ρ$ of 0.4686 on PageRank prediction and 0.6192 on citation prediction for papers published in 2021. We propose a research ideation pipeline built on top of MIRAI that produces research ideas oriented towards high impact. These ideas were judged as more impactful than a baseline without MIRAI by an unbiased LLM judge at a 4:3 ratio. We make the 5-year citation prediction model publicly available at https://predict-paper-impact.vercel.app.

Generating novel research ideas is fundamental to scientific progress. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in assisting this process, existing approaches often exhibit semantic convergence, resulting in limited diversity and novelty. To address this, we introduce EvoGens, an evolution-inspired framework that recasts scientific idea generation as an evolutionary search over a population of ideas. EvoGens iteratively applies rank-based mutation with differentiated retrieval planning to incorporate external knowledge, and semantic-aware crossover to fuse complementary concepts for conceptual reorganization. A lightweight evaluation signal guides the selection process, encouraging sustained exploration while mitigating premature convergence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EvoGens substantially enhances exploration capabilities compared to state-of-the-art baselines. Specifically, it improves the Novelty from 0.1 to 0.4 and the Diversity from 0.24 to 0.55, while maintaining comparable idea quality under the current automatic evaluation protocol. These findings suggest that evolutionary mechanisms can serve as a useful framework for exploration-oriented research ideation, especially for broadening the novelty and diversity of candidate ideas under a shared automatic evaluation setting.

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.

Research idea generation is the innovation-driving step of automated scientific research. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown potential for automating idea generation at scale. However, existing methods mainly condition LLMs on eliciting idea generation through static retrieval of relevant literature or complex prompt engineering, without discarding the structural relations among references. We propose Graphs of Research (GoR), a supervised fine-tuning method that extracts a 2-hop reference neighborhood for each seed paper, derives the relations among those references from citation position, frequency, predecessor links, and publication time, and organizes them into a paper-evolution directed acyclic graph (DAG). We construct an automated extraction pipeline that draws data from five major ML/NLP venues, comprising 498/50/50 train/validation/test seed papers and approximately 7,600 cited references. Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-1M is fine-tuned on a structured-text prompt that includes the citation graph, edge signals, reference information, and task definition to predict the idea for the seed paper. Across head-to-head LLM-judge tournaments against gpt-4o-driven baselines, GoR-SFT achieves SOTA, demonstrating the effectiveness of citation-evolution graphs as supervision signal for LLM-based idea generation. We hope that this reduces the barrier for citation evolution graphs as a supervision, accelerating automated scientific innovation.

The discovery of novel methodologies for emerging problems is a continuing cycle in ML, often driven by the migration of techniques across domains. Building on this observation, we ask whether current LLM ideation systems benefit from targeted cross-domain retrieval or simply from exposure to diverse mechanisms. We study this question through PaperGym, a three-stage pipeline: (1) tool-augmented seed extraction via read, grep, and bash over an isolated paper environment, (2) cross-domain seed retrieval via paraphrasing across seven ML domains, and (3) method synthesis from retrieved seeds, each scored by rubric-based judges. Tool-augmented extraction improves specificity, and paraphrase-based retrieval broadens domain coverage. In synthesis, cross-domain retrieval receives more pairwise novelty wins than no-retrieval and same-domain baselines, but shows no significant difference from a random diverse-seed control. These findings suggest LLM ideation systems benefit from diverse seed exposure, but do not yet reliably exploit the semantic reason particular seeds were retrieved. We release the seed library, rubric prompts, and run scripts at https://github.com/yunjoochoi/PaperGym

AI research agents have shown strong potential in automating literature search and manuscript refinement, yet most assume a clear and actionable initial input, operating only after a research question has been made explicit. In contrast, human research often begins with tacit friction, a sense of misalignment before a question can be formed. We introduce InciteResearch, a multi-agent framework designed to make a researcher's implicit understanding explicit, inspectable, and actionable. InciteResearch decomposes the logical chain of Socratic questioning and distributes it across the entire pipeline that: (1) Elicits a structured five-dimensional researcher profile state anchored by specific friction points from vague, even domain-unrelated inputs; (2) Violates hidden assumptions by maximizing the feasibility-novelty product with enforcing a 7-stage causal derivation trace; and (3) check whether the proposed method is a Necessary consequence of the reframed insight. We further introduce TF-Bench, the first benchmark for tacit-to-explicit research assistance that distinguishes domain-related from domain-unrelated inspirations across four scientific modes. On TF-Bench, InciteResearch achieves leapfrogging gains over a prompt-based baseline (novelty/impact from 3.671/3.806 to 4.250/4.397), shifting generated proposals from recombination to architectural insight. Our work demonstrates that AI can serve as an extension of thinking itself, rather than merely automating downstream execution.

Scientific discovery is an extended process of ideation--surveying prior work, forming hypotheses, and refining reasoning--yet existing approaches treat this phase as a brief preamble despite its central role in research. We introduce SCISENSE, a sensemaking-grounded framework that operationalizes ideation as a structured sequence of eight cognitive stages (Pirolli & Card, 2005). We construct SCISENSE-Traj, a 100K-scale dataset of citation-conditioned research trajectories in two modes: Target, where an LLM reconstructs the ideation path leading to a known paper from its cited works, and Infer, where the LLM proposes novel directions from the same citations. We distill these into SCISENSE-LM, a family of sensemaking LLMs spanning 3B to 70B parameters. Contrary to the assumption that looser supervision promotes greater exploration, Target-trained models achieve a 2.0% improvement in trajectory quality over Infer-trained models while also producing more novel and diverse outputs. This advantage propagates downstream: coding agents conditioned on Target trajectories produce research artifacts with higher executability and quality than those conditioned on Infer trajectories. This suggests that targeted ideation reduces cognitive burden on downstream agents, freeing them to explore more creatively. SCISENSE offers both a practical tool for augmenting LLM-driven research workflows and a principled testbed for studying how planning shapes scientific discovery.