Can Large Language Models Forecast What Researchers Study Next?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00747v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 05:26:37 GMT
• Title: Can Large Language Models Forecast What Researchers Study Next?
• Abstract summary: Given a community's literature up to a cutoff, a system produces up to five ranked ideas, which are evaluated against later papers.<n>We compare five history-compression strategies across GPT-4.1, Qwen2.5-7B/14B, and Qwen3.5-9B, together with a learned Mode-Decomposition Forecaster (MDF)<n>An outcome-blind assessment finds that Qwen2.5 produces broader forecasts, but does not identify how much breadth contributes to its advantage.
• Score: 26.392349686051173
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models increasingly generate research ideas, yet judging their novelty or feasibility at generation time does not establish whether they anticipate subsequent work. We introduce IdeaForecastBench to evaluate research idea forecasting. Given a community's literature up to a cutoff, a system produces up to five ranked ideas, which are evaluated against later papers. The benchmark comprises 624 rolling episodes across 52 topics, with a fixed retrieve-then-judge protocol and separately reported results from two judges. We compare five history-compression strategies across GPT-4.1, Qwen2.5-7B/14B, and Qwen3.5-9B, together with a learned Mode-Decomposition Forecaster (MDF). Under the primary GPT-4.1-mini judge, Summary improves on Direct in Hit@5 and Precision@5 across all four backbones. Qwen2.5 scores above GPT-4.1, whereas Qwen3.5 scores below it. An outcome-blind assessment finds that Qwen2.5 produces broader forecasts, but does not identify how much breadth contributes to its advantage. Threshold and judge diagnostics further clarify the limits of interpreting realization as precise anticipation. IdeaForecastBench provides a common task for studying which research ideas a community subsequently pursues and how reliably this outcome can be measured.

Related papers

• RAP: Research Attention Prediction Reveals Target-Conditioned Evidence Acquisition Biases [58.92094935632493]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as research agents, yet their ability to track shifts in research attention is difficult to evaluate.<n>We introduce Research Attention Prediction (RAP), a rolling benchmark covering 278 AI/ML fields and 1,390 episodes.<n>At each cut-off, an LLM agent searches a temporally restricted arXiv corpus and predicts the next six months' paper shares across eight frozen research directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T12:15:14Z)
• Reconstruction: A Blind Benchmark for Recovering Research Ideas from Pre-Publication Bibliographies [5.8079638399400375]
  We introduce Reconstruction, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature.<n>We ask models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T14:44:30Z)
• SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones? [51.154921661608675]
  We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions.<n>SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T17:57:37Z)
• Agentic Forecasting using Sequential Bayesian Updating of Linguistic Beliefs [1.7470133607730627]
  BLF (Bayesian Linguistic Forecaster) is an agentic system for binary forecasting.<n>On 400 backtesting questions from the ForecastBench leaderboard, BLF outperforms all the top public methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T17:57:51Z)
• GIANTS: Generative Insight Anticipation from Scientific Literature [84.95947892931142]
  We introduce insight anticipation, a generation task in which a model predicts a downstream paper's core insight from its foundational parent papers.<n>We evaluate models using an LM judge that scores similarity between generated and ground-truth insights, and show that these similarity scores correlate with expert human ratings.<n>We present GIANTS-4B, an LM trained via reinforcement learning (RL) to optimize insight anticipation using these similarity scores as a proxy reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T18:13:55Z)
• 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)
• Reasoning or Memorization? Unreliable Results of Reinforcement Learning Due to Data Contamination [67.67725938962798]
  Pre-training on massive web-scale corpora leaves Qwen2.5 susceptible to data contamination in widely used benchmarks.<n>We introduce a generator that creates fully clean arithmetic problems of arbitrary length and difficulty, dubbed RandomCalculation.<n>We show that only accurate reward signals yield steady improvements that surpass the base model's performance boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:55:15Z)
• Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Artificially Generated Scientific Research [3.9845810840390743]
  We investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction.<n>Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T14:56:14Z)
• Deep Transfer Learning Based Peer Review Aggregation and Meta-review Generation for Scientific Articles [2.0778556166772986]
  We address two peer review aggregation challenges: paper acceptance decision-making and meta-review generation. Firstly, we propose to automate the process of acceptance decision prediction by applying traditional machine learning algorithms. For the meta-review generation, we propose a transfer learning model based on the T5 model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T15:40:37Z)
• News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3 [73.48220043216087]
  We study how GPT-3 compares against fine-tuned models trained on large summarization datasets. We show that not only do humans overwhelmingly prefer GPT-3 summaries, prompted using only a task description, but these also do not suffer from common dataset-specific issues such as poor factuality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-26T01:04:52Z)
• Back to Square One: Bias Detection, Training and Commonsense Disentanglement in the Winograd Schema [106.79804048131253]
  The Winograd (WS) has been proposed as a test for measuring commonsense capabilities of models. We show that the current evaluation method of WS is sub-optimal and propose a modification that makes use of twin sentences for evaluation. We conclude that much of the apparent progress on WS may not necessarily reflect progress in commonsense reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-16T15:17:23Z)

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.