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.
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
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.
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...
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.· Quantitative Science Studies· 2 citations
By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.
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