InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14367v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:40:31 GMT
• Title: InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem
• Authors: Shuofei Qiao, Yunxiang Wei, Xuehai Wang, Bin Wu, Boyang Xue, Ningyu Zhang, Hossein A. Rahmani, Yanshan Wang, Qiang Zhang, Keyan Ding, Jeff Z. Pan, Huajun Chen, Emine Yilmaz,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 87.30601926271864
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

Related papers

• Reward Modeling for Scientific Writing Evaluation [50.33952894976367]
  It is critical to develop models that can be reliably deployed for evaluating diverse open-ended scientific writing tasks.<n>We propose cost-efficient, open-source reward models tailored for scientific writing evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T15:32:58Z)
• Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas [35.25560221100292]
  New ideas need to be situated within an ever-expanding landscape of existing knowledge.<n>Current embedding approaches conflate distinct conceptual aspects into single representations.<n>We introduce the Ideation Space, a structured representation that decomposes scientific knowledge into three distinct dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T18:56:11Z)
• ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature [18.31628500009905]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T21:55:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Evaluatology: The Science and Engineering of Evaluation [11.997673313601423]
  This article aims to formally introduce the discipline of evaluatology, which encompasses the science and engineering of evaluation. We propose a universal framework for evaluation, encompassing concepts, terminologies, theories, and methodologies that can be applied across various disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T13:38:26Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)

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.