OpenNovelty: An LLM-powered Agentic System for Verifiable Scholarly Novelty Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01576v1
• Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2026 15:48:51 GMT
• Title: OpenNovelty: An LLM-powered Agentic System for Verifiable Scholarly Novelty Assessment
• Authors: Ming Zhang, Kexin Tan, Yueyuan Huang, Yujiong Shen, Chunchun Ma, Li Ju, Xinran Zhang, Yuhui Wang, Wenqing Jing, Jingyi Deng, Huayu Sha, Binze Hu, Jingqi Tong, Changhao Jiang, Yage Geng, Yuankai Ying, Yue Zhang, Zhangyue Yin, Zhiheng Xi, Shihan Dou, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang,
• Abstract summary: OpenNovelty is an agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis.<n>It grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments.<n>OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.
• Score: 63.662126457336534
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating novelty is critical yet challenging in peer review, as reviewers must assess submissions against a vast, rapidly evolving literature. This report presents OpenNovelty, an LLM-powered agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis. The system operates through four phases: (1) extracting the core task and contribution claims to generate retrieval queries; (2) retrieving relevant prior work based on extracted queries via semantic search engine; (3) constructing a hierarchical taxonomy of core-task-related work and performing contribution-level full-text comparisons against each contribution; and (4) synthesizing all analyses into a structured novelty report with explicit citations and evidence snippets. Unlike naive LLM-based approaches, \textsc{OpenNovelty} grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments. We deploy our system on 500+ ICLR 2026 submissions with all reports publicly available on our website, and preliminary analysis suggests it can identify relevant prior work, including closely related papers that authors may overlook. OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.

Related papers

• SECite: Analyzing and Summarizing Citations in Software Engineering Literature [0.13999481573773073]
  SECite is a novel approach for evaluating scholarly impact through sentiment analysis of citation contexts.<n>We develop a semi-automated pipeline to extract citations referencing nine research papers.<n>We apply advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques with unsupervised machine learning to classify these citation statements as positive or negative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T19:10:01Z)
• DeepSynth-Eval: Objectively Evaluating Information Consolidation in Deep Survey Writing [53.85037373860246]
  We introduce Deep Synth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities.<n>We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization)<n>Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write significantly outperform single-turn generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T03:07:52Z)
• SurveyBench: Can LLM(-Agents) Write Academic Surveys that Align with Reader Needs? [37.28508850738341]
  Survey writing is a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task.<n>Recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically.<n>But their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark.<n>We propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T15:49:09Z)
• Learning to Summarize by Learning to Quiz: Adversarial Agentic Collaboration for Long Document Summarization [86.98098988779809]
  We propose SummQ, a novel adversarial multi-agent framework for long document summarization.<n>Our approach employs summary generators and reviewers that work collaboratively to create and evaluate comprehensive summaries.<n>We evaluate SummQ on three widely used long document summarization benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T08:36:19Z)
• Let's Use ChatGPT To Write Our Paper! Benchmarking LLMs To Write the Introduction of a Research Paper [64.50822834679101]
  SciIG is a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works.<n>We assess five state-of-the-art models, including open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems.<n>Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T21:11:11Z)
• ReportBench: Evaluating Deep Research Agents via Academic Survey Tasks [14.371010711040304]
  ReportBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate the content quality of research reports generated by large language models (LLMs)<n>Our evaluation focuses on two critical dimensions: (1) the quality and relevance of cited literature, and (2) the faithfulness and veracity of the statements within the generated reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T03:33:43Z)
• Document Attribution: Examining Citation Relationships using Large Language Models [62.46146670035751]
  We propose a zero-shot approach that frames attribution as a straightforward textual entailment task.<n>We also explore the role of the attention mechanism in enhancing the attribution process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T04:40:11Z)
• ResearchArena: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Ability to Collect and Organize Information as Research Agents [30.603079363363634]
  This study introduces ResearchArena, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models' capabilities in conducting academic surveys.<n>ResearchArena models the process in three stages: (1) information discovery, identifying relevant literature; (2) information selection, evaluating papers' relevance and impact; and (3) information organization.<n>To support these evaluations, we construct an offline environment of 12M full-text academic papers and 7.9K survey papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T03:26:30Z)
• QuOTeS: Query-Oriented Technical Summarization [0.2936007114555107]
  We propose QuOTeS, an interactive system designed to retrieve sentences related to a summary of the research from a collection of potential references. QuOTeS integrates techniques from Query-Focused Extractive Summarization and High-Recall Information Retrieval to provide Interactive Query-Focused Summarization of scientific documents. The results show that QuOTeS provides a positive user experience and consistently provides query-focused summaries that are relevant, concise, and complete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T18:43:24Z)
• NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review [58.71736531356398]
  We introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. We augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T12:29:38Z)
• Retrieval Augmentation for Commonsense Reasoning: A Unified Approach [64.63071051375289]
  We propose a unified framework of retrieval-augmented commonsense reasoning (called RACo) Our proposed RACo can significantly outperform other knowledge-enhanced method counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-23T23:49:08Z)

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.