NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11234v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:34:56 GMT
• Title: NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
• Score: 54.4265627247104
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences, yet novelty remains a persistent weak point. Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score, making it difficult to diagnose which dimension a model misjudges or whether its evidence is faithful. We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis. The benchmark contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, drawn from two expert sources: ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. Instances are independently labeled along three dimensions: task, problem, and method, capturing application goals, technical challenges, and solution approaches. We propose a cascading diagnostic pipeline that verifies per-dimension correctness, evidence grounding, and logical support. Evaluation of 18 LLMs shows hallucination rates ranging from 0% to 39% across dimensions, and among non-hallucinated correct-positive judgments, over 70% cite evidence fails to logically support the stated reason. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves 43-72% Verified F1 across dimensions, while most models retain less than half of their raw F1 after faithfulness verification. These results suggest that current LLMs remain far from reliable scientific novelty assessment, particularly when correctness is conditioned on faithful evidence grounding.

Related papers

• Reliability, validity, and diagnostic evidence for multi-model LLM short-answer scoring [2.5445349880936483]
  Short-answer scoring requires evidence about reliability, validity, severity, diagnostic value, and failure cases.<n>This study evaluated repeated multi-model OCG-PRES guided LLM scoring for short-answer assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T00:27:30Z)
• 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)
• Measuring Five-Nines Reliability: Sample-Efficient LLM Evaluation in Saturated Benchmarks [45.86413490112477]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in reliability-sensitive applications.<n>Estimateing rare failure probability with tight confidence bounds requires prohibitively large LLM inference sizes.<n>We propose to learn a sampling distribution concentrated on failure-prone inputs via the cross-entropy method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T20:23:44Z)
• Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Identify Adherence to CONSORT Reporting Guidelines in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Methodological Evaluation Study [7.142913983218931]
  This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of contemporary LLMs in identifying adherence of published RCTs.<n>We constructed a golden standard dataset of 150 published RCTs spanning diverse medical specialties.<n>Top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Flash and DeepSeek-R1, achieved nearly identical macro F1 scores of 0.634 and Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 0.280 and 0.282, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T08:05:15Z)
• PRISMM-Bench: A Benchmark of Peer-Review Grounded Multimodal Inconsistencies [16.537126902822127]
  We introduce PRISMM-Bench, the first benchmark grounded in real reviewer-flagged inconsistencies in scientific papers.<n>We design three tasks, namely inconsistency identification, remedy and pair matching, which assess a model's capacity to detect, correct, and reason over inconsistencies.<n>We benchmark 21 leading LMMs, including large openweight models (GLM-4.5V 106B, InternVL3 78B) and proprietary models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5 with high reasoning)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T13:46:26Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• The NazoNazo Benchmark: A Cost-Effective and Extensible Test of Insight-Based Reasoning in LLMs [3.9977256267361754]
  We present Nazonazo, a cost-effective benchmark built from Japanese children's riddles to test insight-based reasoning.<n>No model except for GPT-5 is comparable to human performance, which achieves a 52.9% mean accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T07:50:04Z)
• AVTrustBench: Assessing and Enhancing Reliability and Robustness in Audio-Visual LLMs [70.4578433679737]
  We introduce Audio-Visual Trustworthiness assessment Benchmark (AVTrustBench), comprising 600K samples spanning over 9 meticulously crafted tasks.<n>Using our benchmark we extensively evaluate 13 state-of-the-art AVLLMs.<n>The findings reveal that the majority of existing models fall significantly short of achieving human-like comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T23:03:24Z)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.