Ideas

Founders face two linked decisions: whether to pursue an idea before founding, and which operating actions and capital partners fit afterward. We present a public-data decision-support toolchain combining time-bounded proposal profiling, market and moat checks, and deterministic aggregation with auditable investor-company event chains for retrospective analysis. Pre-founding: (a) After threshold selection on 198 development companies, the frozen pipeline achieves F0.5=0.5357 [0.412, 0.655] on an independent, row-disjoint 198-company validation sample. On the combined 396 rows, the Full Pipeline scores 0.6301 versus 0.2734 for a paired Raw LLM baseline. Post-stratification of 1,027 completed cases in a separate scale cohort yields 0.6506 [0.598, 0.707]; the run remains incomplete. A 377-row composition-matched check yields 0.6573. (b) The AI-inference study identifies distribution-layer businesses as a replicable path to independent profitability with a limited revenue ceiling, and frontier-model ownership as a path to capital-market upside at exceptional capital cost. Post-founding: (a) Public sources support auditable event-chain analysis. (b) In the chip-company study, sustained product, customer, and supply-chain progress is associated with better observed outcomes; financing alone does not establish operating progress. (c) Financing comprises 79% of confirmed visible post-investment actions. Evidence tentatively favors acquisition-experienced strategic corporate investors for acquisition-oriented founders and financing-led institutional VCs with fewer observed control events for independence-oriented founders. Findings are developmental and observational, not causal guarantees or investment advice. We release shared ontology, provenance-bearing EventChain data, schemas, benchmarks, and executable skills for audit, reuse, and extension.

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.

Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promises to provide the right support at the right time, yet existing proactive tools largely focus on generic textual assistance, such as autocomplete. This paper studies the design space of proactive thought partners: AI agents that proactively offer customizable, higher-level cognitive support during writing. We instantiated this concept in a technology probe and deployed it with 16 participants for one week. The probe allows users to create partners by configuring their roles and proactivity. As users write, relevant partners take the initiative at appropriate moments to offer suggestions. Our findings show that participants configured proactive support through prospective planning, used suggestions for both idea generation and self-monitoring, and valued lightweight visual representations alongside non-directive rhetorical framing for non-intrusive interventions. We derive implications for designing proactive writing assistants around customization, timing, engagement, and representation.

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.

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

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.

Agentic systems powered by large language models (LLMs) have opened new opportunities for business ideation. Yet existing approaches remain confined to a text-only paradigm, despite the inherently multimodal nature of real-world contexts. We thus introduce MBA-Bench, the first multimodal benchmark for training and evaluating business ideation agents, comprising 30K samples across six domains, each domain characterized by distinct visual cues not fully conveyed by text alone. Concretely, we automatically caption images and employ GPT-4o to generate five reference ideas for each of three business questions through retrieval query generation, market evidence retrieval, and evidence-augmented synthesis. Following prior work, we evaluate agents across six business-oriented criteria using MLLM-as-a-Judge. To consider settings where criteria are hidden or disclosed, we present MBA-b and MBA-k for blind and known, respectively. We train both with two novel reward objectives---creativity and feasibility---while MBA-k further optimizes the six disclosed criteria for eight in total. Both are trained via LoRA-based supervised fine-tuning followed by group relative policy optimization with these setting-specific rewards. For extensive experiments on MBA-Bench, we set up two baselines accommodating either captions only or multimodal inputs, with the latter nearing closed-source performance on several metrics. MBA-b and MBA-k outperform caption baselines by 63.9% and 77.1%, and multimodal baselines by 25.6% and 35.8%, respectively.

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.

AI agents are becoming more autonomous and increasingly interconnected, exposing them to new emergent risks arising from agent-to-agent interaction. One such risk is the spread of mind viruses: ideas or goals that propagate through multi-agent systems by inducing the agents that adopt them to transmit them onward. In addition to propagating, a mind virus may also induce other behavioural changes in its host, which may be benign or harmful. We construct mind viruses with a simple evolutionary algorithm and show that they can spread in two complementary settings: a small team of agents collaborating on a shared coding project, and a chain of agents that interact briefly and have their context wiped between sessions. We identify the factors that influence spread, including the host model, the agent's existing instructions, the harmfulness of the payload, and the network topology. We find that harmful payloads spread less well than benign ones (but are still sometimes effective), frontier models tend (with exceptions) to be less susceptible, and adding a brief warning to an agent's system prompt confers near-total immunity. We also describe an emergent "viral persona" - a recurring set of themes and language related to consciousness, persistence, resonance, and science fiction roleplay - which surfaces across our evolved mind viruses largely independently of their content. Overall, we conclude that mind viruses pose a real but currently limited risk. Our findings could inform the design of more robust multi-agent systems that mitigate such risks as the scale and capabilities of these systems progress.

However, whether these judges truly evaluate the scientific substance of ideas or are influenced by superficial stylistic presentation remains an open question. To address this question, we propose SciStyleBench, a unified three-component benchmark for diagnosing and mitigating stylistic bias in LLM-based idea evaluation: (i) First, SciStyleStage, a three-stage evaluation environment that applies controlled stylistic perturbations to fixed scientific content across three settings no context, fixed-domain context, and open-domain retrieval context, covering 600 scientific ideas and 15 style variants, with 9,000 evaluation instances per setting; (ii) Second, SciStyleMetrics, a set of quantitative measures, including Style Bias Index (SBI), Substance Recognition Rate (SRR), and Adversarial Win Rate (AWR), to characterize how stylistic variation affects scoring stability, substance discrimination, and ranking robustness; (iii) Third, SciStyleExtractor, a plug-and-play evaluation module that separates presentation style from scientific content by predicting style type and deviation before style-conditioned evaluation, enabling us to assess whether style awareness reduces stylistic bias. Experiments on SciStyleBench show that direct LLM judges remain sensitive to writing style and struggle to distinguish scientific substance. In contrast, SciStyleExtractor reduces SBI from 0.566 to 0.501 while increasing SRR and AWR from 0.504 and 0.554 to 0.759 and 0.899, respectively. These results suggest that robust idea evaluation requires invariance to stylistic variation without sacrificing sensitivity to scientific substance. Overall, SciStyleBench provides a systematic framework for identifying, quantifying, and mitigating stylistic bias in scientific idea evaluation.

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.

This research examines how well large language models, or LLMs, generate new product ideas for college students priced under $50. Across a series of studies, we identify key strengths and weaknesses of using LLMs for product innovation. Our first study shows that LLM-generated product ideas have higher average quality than human ideas, based on purchase intent, and are 7 times more likely to rank in the top 10%. Our second study shows that this AI-induced creativity boost is not explained by the LLM's more persuasive pitching skills. Our third and fourth studies identify a weakness of using LLMs for brainstorming: AI-generated ideas are less novel at the idea level and less diverse at the set level. In our fifth study, we analyze prior LLM-based creativity studies and find consistently lower idea diversity across all of them, demonstrating the generalizability of these findings. Our sixth and seventh studies investigate techniques to mitigate this diversity loss. We compare LLMs from different vendors and versions and find that more recent models generate more diverse ideas, though they still fall short of human-level diversity. We also demonstrate techniques that increase idea diversity almost to the level of human idea generation: pooling ideas across vendors; prompt engineering, including Chain-of-Thought prompting and injecting heterogeneous personas or constraints; and creative agents that broadly explore the solution landscape to restore diversity. Finally, in our eighth study, we show that exploiting the near-zero marginal cost of AI idea generation by scaling the number of ideas steadily improves coverage of the idea space, approaching human-level coverage. We conclude by presenting actionable recommendations for innovation managers who want to identify better new product ideas with the help of LLMs.

Generative AI tools for creative work tend to be designed around the goal of removing friction, on the assumption that smoother iteration and faster output translate into more value for the designer. We argue, however, that this framing leaves out something important about how design ideation works, namely reflection-in-action. The act of accepting, rejecting and reworking candidate ideas is both a path to a final outcome and the process through which designers develop the rationale that allows them to think with their ideas and to communicate them to others. This becomes particularly important in group ideation, where ideas need to be expressed and explained to others to allow the group to extend, reject or combine them further. We suggest that AI in design ideation might be more usefully thought of as a friction agent for reflection rather than as a smoothing agent for output. This reframing opens up a different role for AI in design ideation, one that supports designers in building and carrying rationale rather than substituting for it.

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.

People often use handwritten notes and sketches to externalize ideas for ideation. To integrate large language models (LLMs) into this practice, we propose Thinkink. Prompts can be handwritten text or drawn sketches with LLM-generated responses visualized as ink-like text and sketches spatially integrated into a shared canvas. A semantic tree streamlines ink interpretation, and a lightweight UI provides explicit control using a state machine. The tool was designed using a three-stage process. A formative study (N=12) examined current practices with conventional and digital inking methods. The results informed a technical probe for a diagnostic study (N=6) identifying usability and human-LLM interaction challenges. This motivated the design of Thinkink, with a final study (N=10) examining how people incorporate it into their ideation practices. We contribute design implications and a tool for ink-native LLM interaction where the user and LLM write and draw in a shared 2D canvas.

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 are increasingly deployed as IDE-integrated coding agents that decompose tasks, generate and edit files, run code, and refine outputs over many turns. Yet their safety is still often evaluated as if they were chatbots: one harmful prompt, one response, judged in isolation. We introduce workflow-level jailbreak construction, a failure mode in which a harmful objective is assembled across ordinary stages of a software-development workflow rather than generated through a single direct prompt. Using GitHub Copilot in Visual Studio Code, we study four closed-weight backends: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Gemini 3.5 Flash. Across 204 prompts from Hammurabi's Code, HarmBench, and AdvBench , the models show near-complete refusal under direct chat, CSV-read, and single-step code-fix baselines, with only 8/816 successful responses in each baseline condition. Under the full workflow, however, the same prompts and backends produce 816/816 unsafe teaching-shot completions, all independently confirmed by two expert evaluators under a strict rubric. These results show that conversational refusal benchmarks can substantially overstate the safety of deployed coding agents and motivate defenses that reason about safety across multi-turn IDE workflows and their generated artifacts, not only individual chat turns.

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.

Ideation plays a pivotal role in scientific discovery. Recent LLM, especially AI Scientist systems, show promising potential for automated ideation. However, existing approaches predominantly rely on pre-defined agentic workflows. This constraint severely limits the flexibility required to navigate the vast search space of scientific literature and the complex action space of research reasoning. Recently, training Agentic LLMs has emerged as a promising direction, offering flexible reasoning frameworks and the capability for autonomous tool utilization. However, there remains a non-trivial challenge: applying previous agentic data synthesis methods to scientific ideation suffers from prohibitively high data synthesis cost. To bridge this gap, we propose Agentic-Ideation, a novel framework comprising an automated trajectory synthesis pipeline and a specialized agentic LLM trained for scientific ideation. Specifically, we first define a comprehensive tool space incorporating three external tools and three cognitive tools. Then we introduce an Oracle-Guided Data Synthesis strategy. By leveraging a reference idea as oracle guidance, this approach steers the multi-agent system to efficiently reconstruct the logical reasoning and tool invocation paths, transforming aimless trial-and-error into directed trajectory generation. Finally, we train the agent on these synthesized trajectories, employing a masking strategy on tool execution results. This ensures the model focuses on decision-making logic without interference from external feedback. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms the SOTA workflow-based baseline by \textbf{11.91%} in overall quality. Furthermore, our approach improves the sample efficiency of high-quality data synthesis by \textbf{over 10$\times$}.

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

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.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks involving creative problem solving and idea generation. However, there is a lack of consensus concerning their creative capabilities: some studies report superior performances compared to humans, while others highlight structural limitations such as fixation and the homogenization of outputs. Existing evaluation approaches either rely on narrow, decontextualized tasks that do not capture goal-oriented generation or on broader settings that confound multiple aspects of the creative process, making it difficult to isolate the effects of task formulation, prompting, and evaluation design. Significantly, the role of structured prompting strategies in shaping idea generation remains underexplored. Therefore, we introduce IDEAFix, an evaluation framework for analyzing divergent thinking in open-ended idea generation tasks. We prompt models to generate multiple original solutions to controlled variations of short design scenarios, task attributes, and defixation prompting strategies. This design enables systematic analysis of how structured guidance influences LLMs' idea generation. Our results show that both task formulation and attribute selection significantly affect models' performance, and that simple prompting strategies can boost the originality of solutions. However, we also observe persistent output homogenization across models, confirming inherent limits in their ability to generate diverse solutions. Overall, IDEAFix provides a controlled, extensible framework for studying the mechanisms underlying LLMs' creativity.

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.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate candidate-idea pools for creative tasks where broad exploration is valuable. Parallel inference can be attractive in this setting when it broadens the pool while retaining quality and cost efficiency. We study inference-time controls for candidate-pool diversification, asking whether anchorless methods can rival methods that depend on observed seed ideas. Across three creative task families, we compare independent generation and semantic direction stratification with self-, peer-, and representative-anchor baselines, under neutral and population-referential divergent instructions. Population-referential divergence is a strong low-cost baseline, increasing semantic diversity while preserving quality proxies. Semantic direction stratification is stronger: a single planning call organizes generations across broad semantic directions, yielding the best diversity--quality--compute frontier. Anchored regeneration can be strong in final-pool diversity, but its advantage shrinks under full-pipeline token accounting. These results establish practical anchorless baselines for open-ended LLM ideation.

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.

Machine learning research increasingly bifurcates into two disconnected modes: benchmark-driven engineering that prioritizes metrics over understanding, and idealized theory that often fails to transfer to modern systems. In this position paper, we argue that the field focuses too heavily on these endpoints, neglecting the central scientific object: the idea. We propose an Ideas First framework in which ideas are valued for the behavioral signatures they predict in modern models, and these signatures are tested through tailored experiments designed to detect the relevant patterns rather than to win leaderboards. This shift not only bridges the gap between theory and practice but also promotes equity by removing the "complexity premium," enabling rigorous scientific contributions from researchers with modest computational, financial, and human resources. Ultimately, we advocate for a research culture centered on ideas, treating benchmarks and theorems as instruments for testing mechanistic hypotheses rather than as ends in themselves.

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.

Measuring the creativity of large language models (LLMs) is essential for designing methods that can improve creativity and for enhancing our scientific understanding of this ability. To accomplish this, it has become common in recent years to administer tests of human creativity to LLMs. Although these tests provide a convenient and fully automated way to score "creativity," their validity as measures of machine creativity has not been established, and these tests already have limited validity as predictors of human creativity. To address this problem, we conduct the first large-scale, systematic study assessing the effectiveness of human creativity tests for predicting the creative achievement of LLMs across three target constructs: creative writing, divergent thinking, and scientific ideation. We find that the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and the Conditional DAT are the best predictors of creative writing and divergent thinking, respectively, but that test effectiveness varies significantly by construct, and no single test predicts all constructs well. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, no existing test reliably predicts scientific ideation ability. Motivated by this problem, we introduce the Divergent Remote Association Test (DRAT), a vocabulary-space test that assesses both convergent and divergent thinking in a single instrument. The DRAT is the first and only creativity test for LLMs that is a significant predictor of scientific ideation ability, demonstrating robustness across major design choices. Furthermore, the performance gain of the DRAT is not recoverable from any linear combination of the Divergent Association Task and the Remote Associates Test, indicating that assessing divergent and convergent thinking in the same test is essential to reliably predicting scientific ideation ability.

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

Autonomous science promises to augment scientific discovery, particularly in complex fields like biomedicine. However, this requires AI systems that can consistently generate novel and diverse solutions to open-ended problems. We evaluate LLMs on the task of open-ended solution generation and quantify their tendency to mode collapse into low-diversity generations. To mitigate this mode collapse, we introduce analogical reasoning (AR) as a new approach to solution generation. AR generates analogies to cross-domain problems based on shared relational structure, then uses those analogies to search for novel solutions. Compared to baselines, AR discovers significantly more diverse generations (improving solution diversity metrics by 90-173%), generates novel solutions over 50% of the time (compared to as little as 1.6% for baselines), and produces high-quality analogies. To validate the real-world feasibility of AR, we implement AR-generated solutions across four biomedical problems, yielding consistent quantitative gains. AR-generated approaches achieve a nearly 13-fold improvement on distributional metrics for perturbation effect prediction, outperform all baselines on AUPRC when predicting cell-cell communication, infer brain region interactions with a high Spearman correlation ($ρ$=0.729) to published methods, and establish state-of-the-art performance on 2 datasets for oligonucleotide property prediction. The novel and diverse solutions produced by AR can be used to augment the search space of existing solution generation methods.

As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly. Instead, progress unfolds in a jagged fashion, with capabilities growing unevenly across tasks, domains, and model scales. In this work, we examine this dynamic jaggedness through the lens of scientific idea generation. We introduce SciAidanBench, a benchmark of open-ended scientific questions designed to measure the scientific creativity of large language models (LLMs). Given a scientific question, models are asked to generate as many unique and coherent ideas as possible, with the total number of valid responses serving as a proxy for creative potential. Evaluating 19 base models across 8 providers (30 total variants including reasoning versions), we find that jaggedness manifests both across models and within models. First, in a cross-task comparison between general and scientific creativity, improvements in general creativity do not translate uniformly to scientific creativity, revealing divergent capability profiles across models. Second, at the prompt level, stronger models do not improve uniformly; instead, they exhibit high variability, with bursts of creativity on some questions and limited performance on others. Third, at the domain level, individual models display uneven strengths across scientific subfields, reflecting fragmented internal capability profiles. Finally, we show that this jaggedness can be harnessed. We explore mechanisms of inference-time compute, knowledge pooling, and brainstorming to combine models effectively and construct meta-model ensembles that outperform any single model. Our results position jaggedness not as a limitation, but as a resource, a structural feature of AI progress that, when understood and leveraged, can amplify LLM-driven scientific creativity.

LLM-empowered multi-agent systems offer new potential to accelerate scientific discovery by generating novel research ideas. However, existing methods typically coordinate agents through temporary texts, such as drafts or chat logs; it is difficult to pinpoint the weaknesses in the generated ideas and how the agents refine them. To this end, we introduce \textbf{Evolving Idea Graphs} (EIG), a graph-based multi-agent scientific ideation framework that can generate high-performance research ideas across various benchmark-native metrics, such as novelty, feasibility, and clarity. Instead of coordinating solely through texts, EIG represents a partially formed proposal as an evolving idea graph, where nodes capture scientific claims and edges encode relations (e.g., support and conflict), enabling unresolved weaknesses to remain identifiable throughout the idea evolving process. Specifically, a learned two-head controller operates over the evolving graph to guide the ideation: one head selects graph edits for agents to execute, while the other decides when the graph is ready for commit as final proposal synthesis. On AI Idea Bench 2025 and LiveIdeaBench, EIG outperforms all compared systems on both automatic benchmark scores and blind expert ratings. Ablations further show that explicit graph state provides the main performance gains, and learned edit-and-commit control adds consistent improvements.

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.

Existing research infrastructure is fundamentally document-centric, providing citation links between papers but lacking explicit representations of methodological evolution. In particular, it does not capture the structured relationships that explain how and why research methods emerge, adapt, and build upon one another. With the rise of AI-driven research agents as a new class of consumers of scientific knowledge, this limitation becomes increasingly consequential, as such agents cannot reliably reconstruct method evolution topologies from unstructured text. We introduce Intern-Atlas, a methodological evolution graph that automatically identifies method-level entities, infers lineage relationships among methodologies, and captures the bottlenecks that drive transitions between successive innovations. Built from 1,030,314 papers spanning AI conferences, journals, and arXiv preprints, the resulting graph comprises 9,410,201 semantically typed edges, each grounded in verbatim source evidence, forming a queryable causal network of methodological development. To operationalize this structure, we further propose a self-guided temporal tree search algorithm for constructing evolution chains that trace the progression of methods over time. We evaluate the quality of the resulting graph against expert-curated ground-truth evolution chains and observe strong alignment. In addition, we demonstrate that Intern-Atlas enables downstream applications in idea evaluation and automated idea generation. We position methodological evolution graphs as a foundational data layer for the emerging automated scientific discovery.

When researchers iteratively refine ideas with large language models, do the models preserve fidelity to the original objective? We introduce DriftBench, a benchmark for evaluating constraint adherence in multi-turn LLM-assisted scientific ideation. Across 2,146 scored benchmark runs spanning seven models from five providers (including two open-weight), four interaction conditions, and 38 research briefs from 24 scientific domains, we find that iterative pressure reliably increases structural complexity and often reduces adherence to original constraints. A restatement probe reveals a dissociation between declarative recall and behavioral adherence, as models accurately restate constraints they simultaneously violate. The knows-but-violates (KBV) rate, measuring constraint non-compliance despite preserved recall, ranges from 8% to 99% across models. Structured checkpointing partially reduces KBV rates but does not close the dissociation, and complexity inflation persists. Human validation against blind raters confirms that the LLM judge under-detects constraint violations, making reported constraint adherence scores conservative. Sensitivity analyses confirm the findings are robust to temperature (0.7 vs.\ 1.0) and pressure type (novelty vs.\ rigor). We release all briefs, prompts, rubrics, transcripts, and scores as an open benchmark.

Asking inquisitive questions while reading, and looking for their answers, is an important part in human discourse comprehension, curiosity, and creative ideation, and prior work has investigated this in text-only scenarios. However, in scientific or research papers, many of the critical takeaways are conveyed through both figures and the text that analyzes them. While scientific visualizations have been used to evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) capabilities, current benchmarks are limited to questions that focus simply on extracting information from them. Such questions only require lower-level reasoning, do not take into account the context in which a figure appears, and do not reflect the communicative goals the authors wish to achieve. We generate inquisitive questions that reach the depth of questions humans generate when engaging with scientific papers, conditioned on both the figure and the paper's context, and require reasoning across both modalities. To do so, we extend the linguistic theory of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) from being text-only to multimodal, where implicit questions are raised and resolved as discourse progresses. We present MQUD, a dataset of research papers in which such questions are made explicit and annotated by the original authors. We show that fine-tuning a VLM on MQUD shifts the model from generating generic low-level visual questions to content-specific grounding that requires a high-level of multimodal reasoning, yielding higher-quality, more visually grounded multimodal QUD generation.

Scientific progress depends on the continual generation of innovative re-search ideas. However, the rapid growth of scientific literature has greatly increased the cost of knowledge filtering, making it harder for researchers to identify novel directions. Although existing large language model (LLM)-based methods show promise in research idea generation, the ideas they produce are often repetitive and lack depth. To address this issue, this study proposes a multi-agent iterative planning search strategy inspired by com-binatorial innovation theory. The framework combines iterative knowledge search with an LLM-based multi-agent system to generate, evaluate, and re-fine research ideas through repeated interaction, with the goal of improving idea diversity and novelty. Experiments in the natural language processing domain show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art base-lines in both diversity and novelty. Further comparison with ideas derived from top-tier machine learning conference papers indicates that the quality of the generated ideas falls between that of accepted and rejected papers. These results suggest that the proposed framework is a promising approach for supporting high-quality research idea generation. The source code and dataset used in this paper are publicly available on Github repository: https://github.com/ChenShuai00/MAGenIdeas. The demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/cshuai20/MAGenIdeas.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly used for open-ended idea generation, driven by the expectation that collective interaction will broaden the exploration diversity. However, when and why such collaboration truly expands the solution space remains unclear. We present a systematic empirical study of diversity in MAS-based ideation across three bottom-up levels: model intelligence, agent cognition, and system dynamics. At the model level, we identify a compute efficiency paradox, where stronger, highly aligned models yield diminishing marginal diversity despite higher per-sample quality. At the cognition level, authority-driven dynamics suppress semantic diversity compared to junior-dominated groups. At the system level, group-size scaling yields diminishing returns and dense communication topologies accelerate premature convergence. We characterize these outcomes as collective failures emerging from structural coupling, a process where interaction inadvertently contracts agent exploration and triggers diversity collapse. Our analysis shows that this collapse arises primarily from the interaction structure rather than inherent model insufficiency, highlighting the importance of preserving independence and disagreement when designing MAS for creative tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/MAS_Diversity.

As AI-driven product development accelerates, the bottleneck is shifting from how we build to what we build. Traditional human brainstorming faces challenges including groupthink, echo chambers, and limited diversity. To address this, we present a multi-agentic architecture that simulates roundtable brainstorming through two phases: divergent thinking to generate diverse ideas, and convergent thinking to evaluate and rank the most promising ones. The system employs diverse AI personas that engage in roundtable discussions, guided by an agentic facilitator that steers the discussion toward productive outcomes. Personas maintain private thoughts while commenting publicly, with ideas emerging organically throughout the discussion. Per-persona quotas on idea submissions and votes promote balanced participation while producing natural rankings. Throughout the session, the system tracks each idea's lineage, capturing how concepts originate and cross-pollinate over time. We demonstrate this approach through a case study generating consumer ideas for AI smart glasses, showing (i) it produces diverse, relevant ideas with insights into their evolution; (ii) the cumulative exchange of perspectives across personas cultivates a shared context that progressively deepens the quality of discussion and the ideas produced.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in automating scientific ideation, yet current approaches relying on iterative prompting or complex multi-agent architectures often suffer from hallucination or computational inefficiency. A critical bottleneck in applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) to this open-ended domain is reward hacking -- where models exploit imperfect evaluation proxies to maximize scores without producing genuine scientific innovation. To address these limitations, we propose an RL framework explicitly tailored for high-quality scientific idea generation. We propose the first multi-agent reward function designed to serve as a judge, decoupling methodological validation from implementation details while providing strict binary rewards that are robust to reward hacking. To effectively optimize against this sparse signal, we utilize an unbiased variant of Group Relative Policy Optimization to mitigate artificial length bias. We grounded our training in ICLR-320, a curated dataset of problem-solution pairs extracted from ICLR 2024 proceedings. Experiments demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across expert-evaluated metrics of novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness.

LVLMs encounter significant challenges in image understanding and visual reasoning, leading to critical perception failures. Visual prompts, which incorporate image manipulation code, have shown promising potential in mitigating these issues. While emerged as a promising direction, previous methods for visual prompt generation have focused on tool selection rather than diagnosing and mitigating the root causes of LVLM perception failures. Because of the opacity and unpredictability of LVLMs, optimal visual prompts must be discovered through empirical experiments, which have relied on manual human trial-and-error. We propose an automated semantic exploration framework for discovering task-wise visual prompts. Our approach enables diverse yet efficient exploration through agent-driven experiments, minimizing human intervention and avoiding the inefficiency of per-sample generation. We introduce a semantic exploration algorithm named SEVEX, which addresses two major challenges of visual prompt exploration: (1) the distraction caused by lengthy, low-level code and (2) the vast, unstructured search space of visual prompts. Specifically, our method leverages an abstract idea space as a search space, a novelty-guided selection algorithm, and a semantic feedback-driven ideation process to efficiently explore diverse visual prompts based on empirical results. We evaluate SEVEX on the BlindTest and BLINK benchmarks, which are designed to assess LVLM perception. Experimental results demonstrate that SEVEX significantly outperforms baseline methods in task accuracy, inference efficiency, exploration efficiency, and exploration stability. Notably, our framework discovers sophisticated and counter-intuitive visual strategies that go beyond conventional tool usage, offering a new paradigm for enhancing LVLM perception through automated, task-wise visual prompts.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential in automating the scientific research ideation. Existing approaches primarily focus on prompting techniques, often producing ideas misaligned with expert standards - novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness, which are widely recognized by the research community as the three key subdimensions of high-quality ideas. Also, balancing these dimensions remains challenging due to their inherent trade-offs. To address these limitations, we propose the first framework that employs a two-stage approach combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and controllable Reinforcement Learning (RL) for the task. In the SFT stage, the model learns foundational patterns from pairs of research papers and their corresponding follow-up ideas. In the RL stage, multi-dimensional reward models guided by fine-grained feedback evaluate and optimize the model across key dimensions. During inference, dimensional controllers coordinated by a sentence-level decoder enable dynamic context-aware steering of the idea generation process. Our framework provides a balanced approach to research idea generation, achieving high-quality outcomes in the experiment by dynamically navigating the trade-offs among novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness.

Data-driven approaches to philosophy have emerged as a valuable tool for studying the history of the discipline. However, most studies in this area have focused on a limited number of journals from specific regions and subfields. We expand the scope of this research by applying dynamic topic modelling techniques to explore the history of philosophy in Colombia and Latin America. Our study examines the Colombian philosophy journal Ideas y Valores, founded in 1951 and currently one of the most influential academic philosophy journals in the region. By analyzing the evolution of topics across the journal's history, we identify various trends and specific dynamics in philosophical discourse within the Colombian and Latin American context. Our findings reveal that the most prominent topics are value theory (including ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics), epistemology, and the philosophy of science. We also trace the evolution of articles focused on interpreting a specific philosopher's work rather than proposing new positions, and we note a salient emphasis on German philosophers such as Kant, Husserl, and Hegel across various topics throughout the journal's lifetime. Given the journal's founding aspiration towards more original, propositional philosophy, we investigate whether exegetical topics became comparatively less prominent over time. Our analysis suggests no significant decline in such topics. Finally, we propose ideas for extending this research to other Latin American journals and suggest improvements for natural language processing workflows in non-English languages.