The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20803v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 19:47:23 GMT
• Title: The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas
• Abstract summary: A good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed.<n>To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study.<n>Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas.
• Score: 90.26363107905344
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

Related papers

• Measuring the Gap Between Human and LLM Research Ideas [63.27812052187884]
  We build an evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers.<n>For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea.<n>We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T17:59:56Z)
• Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas [5.4020309622966325]
  RINoBench is the first comprehensive benchmark for large-scale evaluation of research idea novelty judgments.<n>It comprises 1,381 research ideas derived from and judged by human experts as well as nine automated evaluation metrics.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate several state-of-the-art large language models on their ability to judge the novelty of research ideas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T00:54:10Z)
• Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research [106.90422658528819]
  Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback.<n>We build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness.<n>We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T22:35:44Z)
• Deep Ideation: Designing LLM Agents to Generate Novel Research Ideas on Scientific Concept Network [9.317340414316446]
  We propose a framework to integrate a scientific network that captures keyword co-occurrence and contextual relationships.<n>A critic engine, trained on real-world reviewer feedback, guides the process by providing continuous feedback on the novelty and feasibility of ideas.<n>Our approach improves the quality of generated ideas by 10.67% compared to other methods, with ideas surpassing top conference acceptance levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T04:00:20Z)
• Harnessing Large Language Models for Scientific Novelty Detection [49.10608128661251]
  We propose to harness large language models (LLMs) for scientific novelty detection (ND)<n>To capture idea conception, we propose to train a lightweight retriever by distilling the idea-level knowledge from LLMs.<n> Experiments show our method consistently outperforms others on the proposed benchmark datasets for idea retrieval and ND tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T14:08:13Z)
• 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.<n>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.<n>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)
• Chain of Ideas: Revolutionizing Research Via Novel Idea Development with LLM Agents [64.64280477958283]
  An exponential increase in scientific literature makes it challenging for researchers to stay current with recent advances and identify meaningful research directions. Recent developments in large language models(LLMs) suggest a promising avenue for automating the generation of novel research ideas. We propose a Chain-of-Ideas(CoI) agent, an LLM-based agent that organizes relevant literature in a chain structure to effectively mirror the progressive development in a research domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T03:26:37Z)
• 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)
• Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers [90.26363107905344]
  Large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery. No evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T08:25:03Z)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is an AI-based system for ideation and operationalization of novel work.<n>ResearchAgent automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them.<n>We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)

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.