Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LigBench claims that free-form AI research ideas can be formalized, compared pairwise against a large reference pool, and aggregated by an Elo scheme into a single 0–5 score that aligns with expert judgment.

desk verdict Useful benchmark and dataset, but the human-alignment claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13136 v1 pith:3BDYR47R submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DBcs.MA

Chenrun Wang , Mingxuan Zhu , Tiancheng Huang , Wenjie Li , Yujie Zhang , Zichen Zhu , Zhiying Zou , Kai Yu
show 1 more author
Lu Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.DBcs.MA
keywords researchideaevaluationLLMbenchmarkpairwisecomparisonEloratingformalizationPAIR-IQhumanalignmentnoveltyassessment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a single automated pipeline can evaluate LLM-generated research ideas as reliably as expert reviewers. The proposed LigBench benchmark formalizes any incoming idea into four standardized components, compares it pair by pair with similar papers drawn from a reference pool of over eleven thousand conference papers, and aggregates the pairwise judgments with an adapted Elo rating scheme to produce 0–5 scores for rating, contribution, soundness, and novelty. The authors also assemble PAIR-IQ, the reference pool, with scores taken from peer review and shifted by venue mean to make the numbers comparable. If the claim holds, idea-generation systems can be benchmarked against a common scale instead of bespoke human or LLM scoring, and the pipeline can supply a reward signal for training better ideation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the LigBench evaluation loop. Incoming ideas are first decomposed by an LLM into Main Target, Core Breakthrough, Innovative Methods, and Experimental Design; this formalization is meant to strip away surface differences in length and style that bias direct LLM scoring. Each formalized idea is then compared pairwise with retrieved reference papers drawn from PAIR-IQ, using a Bradley–Terry expected-outcome function in an adapted Elo update with an adaptive K-factor and a tanh soft-clamping function that keeps scores in [0,5]. Novelty is computed separately by fusing an LLM estimate with a weighted similarity measure against live literature, mapped through an inverse sigmoid. The design principle is that errors in pairwise judgment are tolerable because a large number of small Elo updates converges, and misclassified pairs tend to have nearly equal true scores.

What would settle it

Take the held-out pairwise test set and swap the debiased labels for raw venue scores, or renormalize per reviewer rather than per venue; if pairwise accuracy shifts systematically or final benchmark scores move by many percentage points, the reference space is not stable. Alternatively, have a fresh panel of experts judge the 100 pairs at a finer granularity; if agreement with the pairwise judge falls well below the reported 71–79 percent, the human-alignment claim weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that pairwise comparison against a large, debiased reference pool plus iterative Elo-style score updates is enough to rank research ideas in a way that matches expert judgments, even when individual pairwise judgments are imperfect. The paper reports that stronger LLMs reach 0.80+ agreement with the debiased reference labels on rating and soundness, that a fine-tuned small model approaches that level after training on PAIR-IQ, and that when judged ideas are split by acceptance status the pipeline assigns higher scores to accepted NeurIPS 2025 papers on all four dimensions. The authors' stated conclusion is that LigBench provides a principled, scalable standard for objective research idea assessment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole benchmark rests on assuming the debiased peer-review scores are a truthful measure of idea quality — specifically, that a single per-venue mean shift removes all relevant reviewer differences, so that equal scores really mean equal quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new research idea can be submitted in any format and receive comparable 0–5 scores for rating, contribution, soundness, and novelty without a human judge in the loop.
  • Evaluations stay stable when the reference pool is reduced to a single venue or year, so the benchmark does not depend on the exact composition of its reference data.
  • Smaller open models trained on PAIR-IQ reach pairwise judgment accuracies close to far larger models, making the evaluation scalable beyond API-grade judges.
  • Because LigBench separates accepted from rejected NeurIPS 2025 papers, it can serve as a post-hoc check on whether review decisions track the dimensions the community says it values.
  • The same score signal can be exposed to an idea-generation model as a reward for reinforcement learning, turning evaluation into training feedback.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending beyond the paper: the four-part formalization could be reused as a generation template, not just an evaluation target; forcing generators to state target, breakthrough, methods, and experiments might improve the testable specificity of their ideas.
  • Extending beyond the paper: the per-venue mean shift assumes reviewer bias is constant inside each venue-year; normalizing per reviewer or per area would test whether the reference space is truly fair.
  • Extending beyond the paper: the small score gaps in misclassified pairs suggest that pairwise-judgment quality should be evaluated by calibration near the decision boundary, not by overall accuracy alone.
  • Extending beyond the paper: the acceptance-gap result on 50 papers invites a larger blind test; if LigBench scores can predict accept/reject at scale, it may become a triage tool for reviewing rather than only a benchmark.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LigBench, an automated benchmark for evaluating LLM-generated research ideas. The pipeline formalizes input ideas into four structured components (Main Target, Core Breakthrough, Innovative Methods, Experimental Design), retrieves related papers from a curated dataset (PAIR-IQ, built from ICLR 2024/2025 and NeurIPS 2024 reviews), performs LLM-based pairwise comparisons, and aggregates judgments through an Elo rating system with soft clamping and an adaptive K-factor. A separate novelty module combines LLM scoring with semantic-similarity-based quantification. The authors also fine-tune small Qwen models on PAIR-IQ pairwise data. The central claims are that LigBench provides stable, interpretable, and human-aligned evaluation across diverse idea-generation distributions, that PAIR-IQ-trained models improve pairwise ranking accuracy from near-chance to 0.71-0.75, and that the benchmark can distinguish accepted from rejected papers.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a reusable benchmark and dataset for a genuinely important problem: objective evaluation of LLM-generated research ideas. The release of PAIR-IQ (11,164 papers with formalized idea representations and debiased scores) and the detailed pipeline description are valuable community resources, and the experiments span multiple frontier LLMs, idea-generation frameworks, and fine-tuned small models. The paper also provides a mathematical treatment of the Elo update, convergence analysis, and parameter sensitivity studies, which goes beyond typical benchmark papers and enables replication. The strongest contribution would be a standardized, automated alternative to expensive human evaluation, and the reported cross-source stability and human-alignment numbers are encouraging if the underlying labels are trustworthy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The validity of the PAIR-IQ gold standard is the load-bearing assumption of the entire benchmark, and it is not adequately established. Eq. (2) removes venue differences by a single mean shift per venue, which assumes that reviewer bias is constant within each venue-year. OpenReview scores are ordinal aggregates of reviewers with heterogeneous scales and topic-dependent biases; a constant offset cannot absorb such effects. More importantly, the labels are paper-level review scores that reward experimental execution, clarity, and presentation, whereas LigBench evaluates the formalized idea representation (Section 3.1), which deliberately strips results and normalizes style. This construct mismatch propagates to every downstream quantity: the pairwise ground truth in Section 4.2, the Elo parameter grid search on 500 validation pairs in Appendix E.3, the novelty calibration in Appendix F, and the supervised training labels for the Qwen models. The authors should provide evidence that debiased OpenReview scores actually measure the quality of the formalized idea, for example by collecting a small expert study that scores formalized ideas and comparing those scores with the debiased paper scores, or by reporting a noise-ceiling analysis for the pairwise accuracies in Table 2.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The human-alignment study validates only the LLM's pairwise judgments, not the final Elo-aggregated scores that LigBench actually outputs. Table 4 reports 71-79% agreement with experts on pairwise comparisons, but the benchmark's final scores are produced by the Elo update procedure (Section 3.3), whose accuracy depends on the reference pool, the K-factor schedule, and the convergence criterion. The study also lacks an expert-expert agreement measure and a baseline: with three possible outcomes (first better, second better, tie), chance accuracy is around 33%, but a model that always says 'first is better' would also score near 50% if the labels are balanced. Reporting expert-expert agreement and agreement of the full LigBench pipeline against experts would make the 'human-aligned' claim substantially stronger.
  3. [Appendix E.3, Tables 9-10] The Elo parameters d, K_max, and gamma are selected by grid search on 500 validation pairs using the debiased OpenReview ground-truth scores, and the same type of labels is used for the pairwise accuracy evaluation in Section 4.2. This means the benchmark's reported accuracy and stability are tuned to the exact reference space whose validity is in question. The paper should report the evaluation on a truly held-out set of papers that were not used for any parameter selection, and ideally on a set of labels that does not come from the same mean-shift debiasing procedure. Without that separation, the numbers in Tables 2, 9, and 10 may overstate the reliability of the framework for new ideas from different distributions.
  4. [Section 4.4, Table 5] The claim that LigBench 'can meaningfully distinguish higher-quality research ideas from lower-quality ones' is based on only 50 NeurIPS 2025 papers, with no confidence intervals or significance tests. The differences between accepted and rejected papers in Table 5 (e.g., Rating 2.547 vs 2.043) may be real, but with 50 papers the standard errors are large. Reporting per-paper score distributions, bootstrap confidence intervals, or a statistical test would strengthen this validation, especially since the novelty gap (2.627 vs 2.234) is modest and the number of accepted papers in the sample is not stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text says 'projected each score to a standardized 05 range'; this appears to be a typo for '0-5 range'.
  2. [Table 3] The caption of Table 3 does not explain what the row represents beyond 'Mean debiased score differences for incorrectly judged paper pairs by GPT-5.' It would be clearer to state explicitly that these are average absolute differences in the debiased scores of the two papers in each incorrectly judged pair.
  3. [Section 4.4] The selection procedure for the 50 NeurIPS 2025 papers is not described: how were they sampled, how many are accepted versus rejected, and were they chosen from a specific area? This information is needed to interpret Table 5.
  4. [Appendix F] The novelty module's parameters alpha, k, mu, and beta are calibrated against 'Hum.Corr.' with human novelty judgments, but the appendix does not describe where these human judgments come from, the number of annotations, or the annotation protocol. Without this information, the reported correlations in Tables 12, 14, and 15 cannot be verified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: LigBench's pipeline, PAIR-IQ labels, held-out pairwise evaluation, and independent expert study do not reduce to the benchmark's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not, by its own equations or citations, reduce a prediction to an input. The PAIR-IQ labels are external human judgments (OpenReview ratings, contribution, soundness) collected before the benchmark is used, and the paper's own Section 4.3 concedes that these debiased scores are not a perfectly objective gold standard. That is a validity caveat, not a circularity. The pairwise accuracy results in Table 2 are evaluated on a held-out set of 269 pairs whose papers are excluded from training, and the ground-truth labels are the same type of debiased OpenReview scores used for supervision; this is standard supervised evaluation rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The Elo parameters (d, K_max, gamma) are tuned on a 500-pair validation set, but the reported benchmark accuracies and final evaluations are not reported on that same optimization target. The human-alignment study in Section 4.3 is independent of the OpenReview-derived training labels: PhD-level experts provide fresh pairwise judgments on 100 pairs, and the paper reports agreement with LLM pairwise predictions. Section 4.4 additionally validates against external NeurIPS 2025 acceptance outcomes, which are not used in constructing PAIR-IQ. The novelty module calibrates alpha, k, mu, and beta against reported human-correlation and similarity-distribution statistics rather than against LigBench's own final scores, so the novelty score is not defined as the output of that calibration. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the authors do not cite their own prior work to justify the benchmark's central premises, and the mathematical machinery (Bradley-Terry, Elo) is standard and independently established. While the choice of debiased OpenReview scores as the reference space is a substantive validity risk, it does not make the benchmark's claims true by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark depends on seven explicitly tuned scalar parameters (two Elo, five novelty) and on several domain assumptions about the validity of proxy labels, the effect of mean-shift debiasing, and the adequacy of embedding similarity as a novelty signal. The tuning is disclosed, but it means the human alignment of the novelty score is in part manufactured by the fitting procedure.

free parameters (7)
  • Elo scaling parameter d = 1.5
    Grid-searched over {0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0} to minimize MAE against debiased OpenReview labels on 500 validation pairs (Appendix E.3.1).
  • Initial Elo K-factor Kmax = 0.5
    Grid-searched with gamma to balance convergence speed and final MAE (Appendix E.3.2).
  • Elo decay rate gamma = 0.95
    Grid-searched with Kmax; chosen for convergence speed and stability (Appendix E.3.2).
  • Novelty similarity weight alpha = 0.6
    Selected to maximize human correlation and discrimination in novelty assessment (Appendix F.2.1, Table 12).
  • Inverse sigmoid steepness k = 12
    Selected to spread novelty scores over the typical similarity range (Appendix F.2.2, Table 14).
  • Inverse sigmoid inflection point mu = 0.72
    Calibrated from PAIR-IQ similarity distribution statistics so that the median similarity maps to a neutral novelty score of 2.5 (Appendix F.2.2, Table 13).
  • Fusion weight beta = 0.7
    Chosen via ablation to maximize human correlation and robustness (Appendix F.2.3, Table 15).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Four components (main target, core breakthrough, innovative methods, experimental design) capture the quality-relevant content of a research idea.
    Invoked throughout Section 3; the entire comparison and scoring pipeline operates on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption Debiased OpenReview ratings, contribution, and soundness scores are a valid gold-standard for idea quality after venue-mean shift.
    Foundation of PAIR-IQ construction (Section 3.2) and ground truth for pairwise accuracy (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption A single per-venue mean shift removes all systematic cross-venue and cross-year bias in review scores.
    Eq. (2) in Section 3.2; if bias varies within venue or is not additive, the debiased labels are distorted.
  • standard math Pairwise quality comparisons follow a Bradley-Terry and Elo model with latent scores on a 0-5 scale.
    Eq. (3) and Appendix E.2; a standard choice for paired comparison aggregation.
  • domain assumption LLM judges are consistent with the true ordering with probability p > 0.5 and expected updates point toward the true score.
    Theorem 1 in Appendix E.5.1 assumes this; the paper does not verify sign-consistency empirically beyond overall accuracy.
  • domain assumption Embedding cosine similarity to retrieved papers is inversely related to novelty, with the weighted max-plus-mean aggregation capturing the relevant structure.
    Appendix F.1.2 and Eq. (12); the functional form is a modeling choice, not derived from a theory of novelty.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated ideas can be fairly compared with published paper ideas after formalization into the same four-part template.
    Central to the benchmark's claim of applicability across generation distributions (Section 3.1 and Section 4.6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LigBench: A Unified and Human-Aligned Benchmark for LLM-based Research Idea Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BDYR47R

@misc{pith2026260813136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LigBench: A Unified and Human-Aligned Benchmark for LLM-based Research Idea Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BDYR47R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13136}
}
read the original 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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the LigBench evaluation pipeline. Given a target idea, LigBench performs idea formal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistical overview of the PAIR-IQ dataset. The dataset comprises 11,164 papers collected from three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution by conference venues. ,→ efficient models with strong ,→ generalization capabilities ... ", " keywords ": " approximate symmetries , invariances , ,→ deep generative models ", " primary area ": " Generative models ", " rating ": 2.9 070 274219833774 , " contribute ": 2.587674461477269 , " soundness ": 2.84368 090 7598996 , " novelty ": "0", " analysis ": { " main_target ": " This research constructs a ,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Jinheon Baek, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Silviu Cucerzan, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2025. Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Paper...

    work page 2025

  2. [3]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

    work page 1952

  3. [6]

    Arpad E. Elo. 1978. The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present. Arco Publishing

    work page 1978

  4. [14]

    Qwen Team , An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, and 24 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115 Qwen2.5 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2412.15115

    arXiv 2025

  5. [17]

    Haoyang Su, Renqi Chen, Shixiang Tang, Zhenfei Yin, Xinzhe Zheng, Jinzhe Li, Biqing Qi, Qi Wu, Hui Li, Wanli Ouyang, and 1 others. 2025. Many heads are better than one: Improved scientific idea generation by a llm-based multi-agent system. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), p...

    work page 2025

  6. [19]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2201.11903

    arXiv 2023

  7. [21]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

    work page 2023

  8. [24]

    Attention is All you Need , url =

    Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki and Uszkoreit, Jakob and Jones, Llion and Gomez, Aidan N and Kaiser, ukasz and Polosukhin, Illia , booktitle =. Attention is All you Need , url =

Show all 39 references
  1. [25]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  2. [26]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  3. [27]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    1981

  4. [28]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  5. [29]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  6. [30]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  7. [31]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

  8. [32]

    2025 , eprint=

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  9. [33]

    2023 , eprint=

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  10. [34]

    L lama F actory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Models

    Zheng, Yaowei and Zhang, Richong and Zhang, Junhao and Ye, Yanhan and Luo, Zheyan. L lama F actory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Models. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations)....

    2024 doi

  11. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07448 , year=

    Large Language Models for Scientific Idea Generation: A Creativity-Centered Survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07448 , year=

  12. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166 , year=

    Scipip: An llm-based scientific paper idea proposer , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23166 , year=

    arXiv

  13. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13185 , year=

    Chain of ideas: Revolutionizing research via novel idea development with llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13185 , year=

    arXiv

  14. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14255 , year=

    Nova: An iterative planning and search approach to enhance novelty and diversity of llm generated ideas , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14255 , year=

    arXiv

  15. [39]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Many heads are better than one: Improved scientific idea generation by a llm-based multi-agent system , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  16. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Gpt-4 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    arXiv

  17. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    arXiv

  18. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    Qwen3 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    arXiv

  19. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109 , year=

    Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109 , year=

    arXiv

  20. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14191 , year=

    Ai idea bench 2025: Ai research idea generation benchmark , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14191 , year=

    2025 arXiv

  21. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 , year=

    The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [46]

    Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1:...

    2025

  23. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04326 , year=

    Hypothesis generation with large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04326 , year=

    arXiv

  24. [48]

    The Method of Paired Comparisons , author=

    Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 1952 , publisher=

    1952

  25. [49]

    1978 , publisher=

    The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present , author=. 1978 , publisher=

    1978

  26. [50]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  27. [51]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  28. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10140 , year=

    The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10140 , year=

    arXiv

  29. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [54]

    Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?

    Chiang, Cheng-Han and Lee, Hung-yi. Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.870

    2023 doi

  31. [55]

    G -Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human Alignment

    Liu, Yang and Iter, Dan and Xu, Yichong and Wang, Shuohang and Xu, Ruochen and Zhu, Chenguang. G -Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human Alignment. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.em...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.