ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16234v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 21:55:07 GMT
• Title: ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature
• Authors: Hanane Nour Moussa, Patrick Queiroz Da Silva, Daniel Adu-Ampratwum, Alyson East, Zitong Lu, Nikki Puccetti, Mingyi Xue, Huan Sun, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Sachin Kumar,
• Abstract summary: We introduce ScholarEval, a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria.<n>To evaluate ScholarEval, we introduce ScholarIdeas, the first expert-annotated dataset of multi-domain research ideas and reviews.<n>Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher coverage of points mentioned in the human expert annotated rubrics in ScholarIdeas compared to all baselines.
• Score: 18.31628500009905
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI tools become increasingly common for research ideation, robust evaluation is critical to ensure the validity and usefulness of generated ideas. We introduce ScholarEval, a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness - the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature, and contribution - the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research. To evaluate ScholarEval, we introduce ScholarIdeas, the first expert-annotated dataset of multi-domain research ideas and reviews, comprised of 117 ideas across four disciplines: artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biochemistry, and ecology. Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher coverage of points mentioned in the human expert annotated rubrics in ScholarIdeas compared to all baselines. Furthermore, ScholarEval is consistently preferred over our strongest baseline o4-mini-deep-research, a reasoning and search-enabled agentic system by OpenAI, in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support. Our large-scale user study also shows that ScholarEval significantly outperforms deep research in literature engagement, idea refinement, and usefulness. We openly release our code, dataset, and ScholarEval tool for the community to use and build on.

Related papers

• InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem [87.30601926271864]
  InnoEval is a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment.<n>We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources.<n>We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T00:40:31Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• EduResearchBench: A Hierarchical Atomic Task Decomposition Benchmark for Full-Lifecycle Educational Research [21.988207602041182]
  We introduce EduResearchBench, the first comprehensive evaluation platform dedicated to academic academic writing.<n>EduResearchBench is built upon our Hierarchical Atomic Task Decomposition (HATD) framework.<n>We propose a curriculum learning strategy that progressively builds competence from foundational skills to complex methodological reasoning and argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:52:30Z)
• Dr.Mi-Bench: A Modular-integrated Benchmark for Scientific Deep Research Agent [52.876617746453995]
  Dr.Mi-Bench is a Modular-integrated benchmark for scientific deep research (DR) agents.<n>Dr.Mi-Eval is a novel modular-integrated evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T17:16:47Z)
• 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)
• ResearcherBench: Evaluating Deep AI Research Systems on the Frontiers of Scientific Inquiry [22.615102398311432]
  We introduce ResearcherBench, the first benchmark focused on evaluating the capabilities of deep AI research systems.<n>We compiled a dataset of 65 research questions expertly selected from real-world scientific scenarios.<n>OpenAI Deep Research and Gemini Deep Research significantly outperform other systems, with particular strength in open-ended consulting questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T06:51:26Z)
• OpenReview Should be Protected and Leveraged as a Community Asset for Research in the Era of Large Language Models [55.21589313404023]
  OpenReview is a continually evolving repository of research papers, peer reviews, author rebuttals, meta-reviews, and decision outcomes.<n>We highlight three promising areas in which OpenReview can uniquely contribute: enhancing the quality, scalability, and accountability of peer review processes; enabling meaningful, open-ended benchmarks rooted in genuine expert deliberation; and supporting alignment research through real-world interactions reflecting expert assessment, intentions, and scientific values.<n>We suggest the community collaboratively explore standardized benchmarks and usage guidelines around OpenReview, inviting broader dialogue on responsible data use, ethical considerations, and collective stewardship.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T09:07:13Z)
• Transforming Science with Large Language Models: A Survey on AI-assisted Scientific Discovery, Experimentation, Content Generation, and Evaluation [58.064940977804596]
  A plethora of new AI models and tools has been proposed, promising to empower researchers and academics worldwide to conduct their research more effectively and efficiently.<n>Ethical concerns regarding shortcomings of these tools and potential for misuse take a particularly prominent place in our discussion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T18:26:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)

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.