Noy Sternlicht, Simra Shahid, Peter Jansen, Daniel S. Weld, Pao Siangliulue, Tom Hope
AI-based ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of their ideas, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models. Such judges are typically built ad hoc and validated, if at all, on human-authored papers rather than on the generated ideas they are meant to score. So, how do novelty judges perform? Not well. We present a systematic controlled study of novelty evaluation design choices. We build an evaluation set automatically, mining OpenReview for passages where reviewers explicitly affirm or dispute a paper's originality and keeping only submissions with unanimous agreement at the extremes of their research area; we pair these with ideas from a vanilla LLM generator. Across six judges, we find that seemingly small prompt design choices have large consequences; e.g., simply telling the judge that reviewers found one idea novel and the other not can change its verdict on more than half of the identical idea pairs it is shown, shifting pairwise accuracy by over 50 points and occasionally pushing it below chance. The same change helps one judge and hurts another. Retrieval and larger reasoning budgets help little, and two purpose-built novelty evaluators are outperformed by our cheapest prompted baseline. These results raise questions about reported novelty gains of automated ideation systems, and call for robust novelty evaluation methods.
Peter Jansen University of Arizona and Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Samiah Hassan, Pragnya Narasimha
Automated Scientific Discovery (ASD) systems can help automatically generate and run code-based experiments, but their capabilities are limited by the code they can reliably generate from parametric knowledge alone. As a result, current systems either mutate a small number of manually-crafted experiment examples, or operate solely from parametric knowledge, limiting quality and reach. We introduce CodeDistiller, a system that automatically distills large collections of scientific Github repositories into a vetted library of working domain-specific code examples, allowing ASD agents to expand their capabilities without manual effort. Using a combination of automatic and domain-expert evaluation on 250 materials science repositories, we find the best model is capable of producing functional examples for 74% of repositories, while our downstream evaluation shows an ASD agent augmented with a CodeDistiller generated library produces more accurate, complete, and scientifically sound experiments than an agent with only general materials-science code examples. We also evaluate LLM-as-a-judge ratings against domain-expert ratings in an A/B testing paradigm, finding moderate agreement and suggesting that inexpensive proxy metrics may be feasible for evaluating scientific discovery systems at scale.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) · 2026 · 正式发表
Peter Jansen University of Arizona and Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peter Clark Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Doug Downey Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Daniel S Weld Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Department of Computer Science, University of Washington
Contemporary automated scientific discovery has focused on agents for generating scientific experiments, while systems that perform higher-level scientific activities such as theory building remain underexplored. In this work, we formulate the problem of synthesizing theories consisting of qualitative and quantitative laws from large corpora of scientific literature. We study theory generation at scale, using 13.7k source papers to synthesize 2.9k theories, examining how generation using literature-grounding versus parametric knowledge, and accuracy-focused versus novelty-focused generation objectives change theory properties. Our experiments show that, compared to using parametric LLM memory for generation, our literature-supported method creates theories that are significantly better at both matching existing evidence and at predicting future results from 4.6k subsequently-written papers.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表