HexEval: An Evidence-Driven Hexagonal Framework for Multidimensional Scholar Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10584v2
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 09:09:14 GMT
• Title: HexEval: An Evidence-Driven Hexagonal Framework for Multidimensional Scholar Assessment
• Abstract summary: HexEval is an evidence-driven hexagonal framework for multidimensional scholar assessment.<n>We show that HexEval preserves intermediate evidence, dimension-specific rationales, and verification signals throughout the evaluation process.
• Score: 4.103608919706051
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Scholar assessment plays a fundamental role in faculty recruitment, funding allocation, academic promotion, and talent discovery. Existing scholar assessment methods predominantly rely on bibliometric indicators and reputation proxies, while recent large language model (LLM)-based approaches mainly focus on evaluating individual research papers rather than comprehensively assessing scholars. We argue that scholar assessment should be formulated as an evidence-driven reasoning problem that jointly considers intrinsic research quality and externally verifiable scholarly behavior. To this end, we propose HexEval, an evidence-driven hexagonal framework for multidimensional scholar assessment. HexEval explicitly organizes scholar assessment into two complementary evidence layers. The intrinsic layer evaluates anonymized representative works along three dimensions, namely research rigor, methodological innovation, and scientific contribution, whereas the external layer characterizes scholars through knowledge translation, research coherence, and academic impact using heterogeneous evidence collected from GitHub, Lens, OpenAlex, and other publicly verifiable sources. Instead of producing opaque aggregate scores, HexEval preserves intermediate evidence, dimension-specific rationales, and verification signals throughout the evaluation process, enabling interpretable and auditable scholar profiles. Experiments across all six dimensions show dimension-dependent agreement with human or external reference criteria: structured calibration improves absolute agreement for intrinsic quality, while the external modules recover broad trajectory and ordinal impact signals. These results support evidence-driven reasoning over heterogeneous scholarly evidence as a promising paradigm for auditable AI-assisted scholar assessment, while exposing the coverage and attribution limitations of public scholarly data.

Related papers

• Ontology-Guided Multi-Agent Extraction of Evaluation Objects from Academic Review Texts: Evidence from Chinese Library and Information Science [6.306930443447107]
  This study proposes an ontology-guided multi-agent framework for evaluation object extraction.<n>It achieves a Precision of 90.33%, Recall of 84.55%, Entity-level F1 of 87.34%, Strict Typed F1 of 79.78%, and Type Accuracy of 91.35%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T03:09:47Z)
• PaperMind: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning and Critique over Scientific Papers in Multimodal LLMs [68.27437550335709]
  We introduce PaperMind, a benchmark designed to evaluate integrated and agent-oriented scientific reasoning over research papers.<n>PaperMind is constructed from real scientific papers across seven domains, including agriculture, biology, chemistry, computer science, medicine, physics, and economics.<n>By analyzing model behavior across multiple tasks, PaperMind enables a diagnostic evaluation of integrated scientific reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T05:42:39Z)
• 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)
• ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review [48.60540055009675]
  ScholarPeer is a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher.<n>We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T06:54:55Z)
• DeepSurvey-Bench: Evaluating Academic Value of Automatically Generated Scientific Survey [53.85391477976017]
  DeepSurvey-Bench is a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively evaluate the academic value of generated surveys.<n>We construct a reliable dataset with academic value annotations, and evaluate the deep academic value of the generated surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T14:42:56Z)
• 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)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• A Content-Based Novelty Measure for Scholarly Publications: A Proof of Concept [9.148691357200216]
  We introduce an information-theoretic measure of novelty in scholarly publications. This measure quantifies the degree of'surprise' perceived by a language model that represents the word distribution of scholarly discourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T03:14:24Z)

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.