AI Idea Bench 2025: AI Research Idea Generation Benchmark

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14191v1
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 05:35:45 GMT
• Title: AI Idea Bench 2025: AI Research Idea Generation Benchmark
• Authors: Yansheng Qiu, Haoquan Zhang, Zhaopan Xu, Ming Li, Diping Song, Zheng Wang, Kaipeng Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We present AI Idea Bench 2025, a framework designed to quantitatively evaluate and compare the ideas generated by Language Models (LLMs)<n>The framework comprises a comprehensive dataset of 3,495 AI papers and their associated inspired works, along with a robust evaluation methodology.<n>The evaluation system gauges idea quality in two dimensions: alignment with the ground-truth content of the original papers and judgment based on general reference material.
• Score: 10.983418515389667
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large-scale Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized human-AI interaction and achieved significant success in the generation of novel ideas. However, current assessments of idea generation overlook crucial factors such as knowledge leakage in LLMs, the absence of open-ended benchmarks with grounded truth, and the limited scope of feasibility analysis constrained by prompt design. These limitations hinder the potential of uncovering groundbreaking research ideas. In this paper, we present AI Idea Bench 2025, a framework designed to quantitatively evaluate and compare the ideas generated by LLMs within the domain of AI research from diverse perspectives. The framework comprises a comprehensive dataset of 3,495 AI papers and their associated inspired works, along with a robust evaluation methodology. This evaluation system gauges idea quality in two dimensions: alignment with the ground-truth content of the original papers and judgment based on general reference material. AI Idea Bench 2025's benchmarking system stands to be an invaluable resource for assessing and comparing idea-generation techniques, thereby facilitating the automation of scientific discovery.

Related papers

• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews.<n>It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights.<n>Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• LiveIdeaBench: Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context [13.967898012303325]
  We introduce LiveIdeaBench, a benchmark evaluating Large Language Models' scientific idea generation. Our benchmark employs a dynamic panel of state-of-the-art LLMs to assess generated ideas across five key dimensions: originality, feasibility, fluency, flexibility, and clarity. Our results demonstrate that models like QwQ-32B-preview achieve creative performance comparable to top-tier models such as claude-3.7-sonnet:thinking, despite significant gaps in their general intelligence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:13:44Z)
• Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning [88.68573198200698]
  We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data.<n>Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios.<n>Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T21:29:00Z)
• IdeaBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Research Idea Generation [19.66218274796796]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how people interact with artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We propose IdeaBench, a benchmark system that includes a comprehensive dataset and an evaluation framework. Our dataset comprises titles and abstracts from a diverse range of influential papers, along with their referenced works. Our evaluation framework is a two-stage process: first, using GPT-4o to rank ideas based on user-specified quality indicators such as novelty and feasibility, enabling scalable personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T17:04:59Z)
• A Survey on All-in-One Image Restoration: Taxonomy, Evaluation and Future Trends [67.43992456058541]
  Image restoration (IR) refers to the process of improving visual quality of images while removing degradation, such as noise, blur, weather effects, and so on. Traditional IR methods typically target specific types of degradation, which limits their effectiveness in real-world scenarios with complex distortions. The all-in-one image restoration (AiOIR) paradigm has emerged, offering a unified framework that adeptly addresses multiple degradation types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T11:11:09Z)
• A Novel Mathematical Framework for Objective Characterization of Ideas through Vector Embeddings in LLM [0.0]
  This study introduces a comprehensive mathematical framework for automated analysis to objectively evaluate the plethora of ideas generated by CAI systems and/or humans. By converting the ideas into higher dimensional vectors and quantitatively measuring the diversity between them using tools such as UMAP, DBSCAN and PCA, the proposed method provides a reliable and objective way of selecting the most promising ideas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T19:10:29Z)
• Good Idea or Not, Representation of LLM Could Tell [86.36317971482755]
  We focus on idea assessment, which aims to leverage the knowledge of large language models to assess the merit of scientific ideas. We release a benchmark dataset from nearly four thousand manuscript papers with full texts, meticulously designed to train and evaluate the performance of different approaches to this task. Our findings suggest that the representations of large language models hold more potential in quantifying the value of ideas than their generative outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-07T02:07:22Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Image Quality Assessment in the Modern Age [53.19271326110551]
  This tutorial provides the audience with the basic theories, methodologies, and current progresses of image quality assessment (IQA) We will first revisit several subjective quality assessment methodologies, with emphasis on how to properly select visual stimuli. Both hand-engineered and (deep) learning-based methods will be covered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T02:38:46Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.