Skip to content

Reconstruction: A Blind Benchmark for Recovering Research Ideas from Pre-Publication Bibliographies

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 31 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Reconstruction is introduced, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature, and asks models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea.

Abstract

Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography? We introduce Reconstruction, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature, and asks models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea. A strict anti-leakage protocol-temporal citation cutoff, anonymous reference IDs, and frozen per-paper bibliographies, which prevents prompt-time leakage of the seed idea. Across six scientific domains and 643 evaluated papers, seven frontier models achieve only modest Match rates (approx. 3-15%). We then evaluate a reference-only multi-agent (top 4) pipeline that combines cross-model review with a Swiss tournament over aligned hypothesis slots, without external web search. Cross-model review plus tournament selection raises Match rates to approx. 23-42% across all six domains, which is an observed approx. 2.4x lift over the best single-model baseline. This draft reports the protocol, anti-leakage design, and current results as an arXiv timestamp.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

What Proves You Wrong: Benchmarking Language Models on Falsifiable Research Ideation

The Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable.

Zi-Yue Wang, Aomufei Yuan, Yi-Ran Yao et al. · 2 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

ResearchQA: Benchmarking Citation-Grounded Question-Answering on Scientific Papers

ResearchQA is introduced, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial, designed for citation-grounded evaluation.

Saba Imran, D. Solanky · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Historical Backtesting for Scientific Question Discovery: A Protocol and Astronomy Pilot

Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable. We formalize historical backtesting as an alternative: a system generates questions from a corpus frozen at a historical cutoff, the questions are...

Hui Mao · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

HOW DEEP DO LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS INTERNALIZE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND CITATION PRACTICES?

It is found that LLMs systematically reinforce the Matthew effect by favoring highly cited papers, with field-specific variation in the rate at which generated references match real papers in bibliometric databases.

Andres Algaba, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori et al. · 2 citations
Review Aug 2026

ARAC: Benchmarking Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness on End-to-End Researchs

The rapid advancement of Auto-Research has surfaced a fundamental evaluation challenge: how can we measure the alignment, logical coherence, and evolutionary completeness of its research trajectory with human research behavior? We propose Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness, ARAC-Bench: a Researcher-Mimicking Ev...

Jiale Cui, Yue-Yao Yuan, Kai-Xi Zhong et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.