AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment
Research ideas are always proposed under resource constraints: a plan must fit the available compute, API credit, and time. Yet evaluations of research-ideation agents mostly score unconstrained novelty or overlap with a published paper, and their LLM judges are rarely checked against peer review. W…
Authors: Shunchao Zhou , Chang Yang , Jingrui Wang , Shuxin Zhuang , Rundong Wang , Runsheng Yu , Xinrun Wang
View a PDF of the paper titled AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment, by Shunchao Zhou and 6 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract: Research ideas are always proposed under resource constraints: a plan must fit the available compute, API credit, and time. Yet evaluations of research-ideation agents mostly score unconstrained novelty or overlap with a published paper, and their LLM judges are rarely checked against peer review. We introduce AlphaIdeaBench, a benchmark of 100 ideation tasks (50 workshop calls for papers and 50 open problems stated in surveys), each paired with an explicit resource budget and a shared proposal schema. An LLM judge scores each proposal on 12 dimensions covering validity, novelty, and feasibility. To validate the judge, we compare its scores on four novelty axes (problem, method, scenario, and insight) with scores derived from reviewer comments on 600 papers from ICLR 2026, NeurIPS 2025, and ICML 2025. For problem and method novelty, Gemini 3.7 Flash is within one point of the reviewer-derived score on 94-97% of papers; agreement on scenario novelty is relatively lower. We evaluate eight published harnesses on a shared backbone and, within one harness, eight backbone LLMs. CoI-Agent obtains the highest overall score, narrowly ahead of SciMON, which leads on method and insight novelty. All harnesses score low on scenario novelty and rarely change the problem setting. The backbone largely determines which open problem a proposal targets, whereas the harness determines whether a proposal addresses one problem or combines several. Weaker backbones such as Llama 4 Scout fail to carry out that harness's strategy and score low on budget feasibility. Finally, when only the budget is varied on three topics, a larger budget changes the experimental setting on compute-intensive topics but only adds tests on an inexpensive one. We release the tasks, rubrics, and scores to foster standardized, reproducible benchmarking of future research-ideation agents under constraints.
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as:
arXiv:2610.33644 [cs.AI]
(or
arXiv:2610.33644v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.33644
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Shunchao Zhou [ view email ]
[v1]
Sat, 24 Oct 2026 12:52:49 UTC (2,852 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment, by Shunchao Zhou and 6 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev
next >
new
recent
| 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
SciX
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
export BibTeX citation
Loading...
BibTeX formatted citation
loading...
Data provided by:
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer ( What is the Explorer? )
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers ( What is Connected Papers? )
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps ( What is Litmaps? )
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations ( What are Smart Citations? )
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv ( What is alphaXiv? )
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ( What is CatalyzeX? )
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub ( What is DagsHub? )
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub ( What is GotitPub? )
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face ( What is Huggingface? )
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast ( What is ScienceCast? )
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate ( What is Replicate? )
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces ( What is Spaces? )
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI ( What is TXYZ.AI? )
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower ( What are Influence Flowers? )
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender ( What is CORE? )
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? |
Disable MathJax ( What is MathJax? )
本文内容由 ai007 从公开渠道聚合,版权归原作者所有。若原文已删除或变更, 以原文站为准;本站存档仅为便于查阅而保留。