LigBench: A Unified and Human-Aligned Benchmark for LLM-based Research Idea Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13136v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 12:11:23 GMT
• Title: LigBench: A Unified and Human-Aligned Benchmark for LLM-based Research Idea Generation
• Abstract summary: LigBench is an automated evaluation benchmark that enables fine-grained and reliable evaluation of AI research ideas.<n>P PAIR-IQ is a dataset tailored for training pairwise idea judgment models.<n>Experiments demonstrate that LigBench achieves stable and interpretable evaluations.
• Score: 36.122822391024755
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), research idea generation has attracted increasing attention. Existing approaches enable LLMs to retrieve relevant literature and propose novel ideas for research areas. However, current evaluation practices for idea generation remain fragmented and lack objective standards, often relying on direct LLM scoring, which limits their ability to provide unified and reliable assessments across a coherent distribution of generated ideas. To address this challenge, we propose LigBench, an automated evaluation benchmark that enables fine-grained and reliable evaluation of AI research ideas, consistently applicable across different generation distributions. In addition, we introduce PAIR-IQ, a dataset tailored for training pairwise idea judgment models and serving as an auxiliary reference to support more objective comparative evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LigBench achieves stable and interpretable evaluations, significantly improving alignment with expert judgments. Furthermore, models trained on PAIR-IQ exhibit enhanced ranking accuracy and robustness, establishing a principled standard for scalable and objective research idea assessment.

Related papers

• SAVOIR: Learning Social Savoir-Faire via Shapley-based Reward Attribution [82.31558282651811]
  Social intelligence, the ability to navigate complex interpersonal interactions, presents a fundamental challenge for language agents.<n>Existing approaches directly employ language models to distribute episode-level rewards, yielding attributions that are retrospective and lack theoretical grounding.<n>We propose SAVOIR, a novel principled framework grounded in cooperative game theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T02:08:25Z)
• Learning to Predict Future-Aligned Research Proposals with Language Models [59.79457676644722]
  We build a time-consistent dataset of 17,771 papers from targets and their pre-cutoff citations.<n>To train models, we build a time-consistent dataset of 17,771 papers from targets and their pre-cutoff citations.<n>Across Llama-3.1 and Qwen2.5 models, future-aligned tuning improves future alignment over unaligned baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T05:41:15Z)
• 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)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics.<n>These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T16:56:52Z)
• LiveIdeaBench: Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context [13.967898012303325]
  We introduce LiveIdeaBench, a benchmark evaluating Large Language Models' scientific idea generation.<n>Our benchmark employs a dynamic panel of state-of-the-art LLMs to assess generated ideas across five key dimensions: originality, feasibility, fluency, flexibility, and clarity.<n>Our results demonstrate that models like QwQ-32B-preview achieve creative performance comparable to top-tier models such as claude-3.7-sonnet:thinking, despite significant gaps in their general intelligence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:13:44Z)
• 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)
• A Novel Psychometrics-Based Approach to Developing Professional Competency Benchmark for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We propose a comprehensive approach to benchmark development based on rigorous psychometric principles. We make the first attempt to illustrate this approach by creating a new benchmark in the field of pedagogy and education. We construct a novel benchmark guided by the Bloom's taxonomy and rigorously designed by a consortium of education experts trained in test development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T19:32:43Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)

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.