Can LLMs Identify Critical Limitations within Scientific Research? A Systematic Evaluation on AI Research Papers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02694v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 15:04:38 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Identify Critical Limitations within Scientific Research? A Systematic Evaluation on AI Research Papers
• Authors: Zhijian Xu, Yilun Zhao, Manasi Patwardhan, Lovekesh Vig, Arman Cohan,
• Abstract summary: LimitGen is the first benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capability to support early-stage feedback and complement human peer review.<n>Our approach enhances the capabilities of LLM systems to generate limitations in research papers, enabling them to provide more concrete and constructive feedback.
• Score: 31.51311612333459
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Peer review is fundamental to scientific research, but the growing volume of publications has intensified the challenges of this expertise-intensive process. While LLMs show promise in various scientific tasks, their potential to assist with peer review, particularly in identifying paper limitations, remains understudied. We first present a comprehensive taxonomy of limitation types in scientific research, with a focus on AI. Guided by this taxonomy, for studying limitations, we present LimitGen, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capability to support early-stage feedback and complement human peer review. Our benchmark consists of two subsets: LimitGen-Syn, a synthetic dataset carefully created through controlled perturbations of high-quality papers, and LimitGen-Human, a collection of real human-written limitations. To improve the ability of LLM systems to identify limitations, we augment them with literature retrieval, which is essential for grounding identifying limitations in prior scientific findings. Our approach enhances the capabilities of LLM systems to generate limitations in research papers, enabling them to provide more concrete and constructive feedback.

Related papers

• LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling Research [32.35279830326718]
  Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable potential in advancing scientific discovery.<n>However, their capability in reproducing code from research papers, especially in the NLP domain, remains underexplored.<n>We present LMR-BENCH, a benchmark designed to evaluate the capability of LLM agents on code reproduction from Language Modeling Research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T07:04:16Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• BAGELS: Benchmarking the Automated Generation and Extraction of Limitations from Scholarly Text [6.682911432177815]
  In scientific research, limitations refer to the shortcomings, constraints, or weaknesses within a study.<n>Authors often a) underreport them in the paper text and b) use hedging strategies to satisfy editorial requirements.<n>This underreporting behavior, along with an explosion in the number of publications, has created a pressing need to automatically extract or generate such limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T06:04:02Z)
• ResearchBench: Benchmarking LLMs in Scientific Discovery via Inspiration-Based Task Decomposition [67.26124739345332]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in assisting scientific research, yet their ability to discover high-quality research hypotheses remains unexamined.<n>We introduce the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLMs with a near-sufficient set of sub-tasks of scientific discovery.<n>We develop an automated framework that extracts critical components - research questions, background surveys, inspirations, and hypotheses - from scientific papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T08:09:15Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Truth or Mirage? Towards End-to-End Factuality Evaluation with LLM-Oasis [78.07225438556203]
  We introduce LLM-Oasis, the largest resource for training end-to-end factuality evaluators.<n>It is constructed by extracting claims from Wikipedia, falsifying a subset of these claims, and generating pairs of factual and unfactual texts.<n>We then rely on human annotators to both validate the quality of our dataset and to create a gold standard test set for factuality evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T12:21:15Z)
• 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)
• LimGen: Probing the LLMs for Generating Suggestive Limitations of Research Papers [8.076841611508488]
  We present a novel and challenging task of Suggestive Limitation Generation (SLG) for research papers. We compile a dataset called textbftextitLimGen, encompassing 4068 research papers and their associated limitations from the ACL anthology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T17:31:43Z)
• SciAssess: Benchmarking LLM Proficiency in Scientific Literature Analysis [26.111514038691837]
  SciAssess is a benchmark for the comprehensive evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific literature analysis. It aims to thoroughly assess the efficacy of LLMs by evaluating their capabilities in Memorization (L1), memorization (L2), and Analysis & Reasoning (L3) It encompasses a variety of tasks drawn from diverse scientific fields, including biology, chemistry, material, and medicine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T12:19:28Z)
• Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy: Risks of LLM Agents for Science [65.77763092833348]
  Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. This paper conducts a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• An Interdisciplinary Outlook on Large Language Models for Scientific Research [3.4108358650013573]
  We describe the capabilities and constraints of Large Language Models (LLMs) within disparate academic disciplines, aiming to delineate their strengths and limitations with precision. We examine how LLMs augment scientific inquiry, offering concrete examples such as accelerating literature review by summarizing vast numbers of publications. We articulate the challenges LLMs face, including their reliance on extensive and sometimes biased datasets, and the potential ethical dilemmas stemming from their use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T19:41:09Z)
• SciBench: Evaluating College-Level Scientific Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models [70.5763210869525]
  We introduce an expansive benchmark suite SciBench for Large Language Model (LLM) SciBench contains a dataset featuring a range of collegiate-level scientific problems from mathematics, chemistry, and physics domains. The results reveal that the current LLMs fall short of delivering satisfactory performance, with the best overall score of merely 43.22%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T07:01:57Z)

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.