AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment

arXiv cs.AI 约 12 分钟读完

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? )

原文标题 AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment
引用来源 arXiv cs.AI
本地存档 2026-10-28 16:11
引用格式 Shunchao Zhou, Chang Yang, Jingrui Wang, Shuxin Zhuang, Rundong Wang, Runsheng Y. AlphaIdeaBench: Benchmarking Automated Research Idea Generation under Feasibility Constraints with Peer Review Alignment. 2026-10-27. https://www.ai007.site/news/51990

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。