Do AI Scientists Know What's New?

Miri Liu; Xiayu Zhao; Encheng Xie; ChengXiang Zhai

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.36511

Do AI Scientists Know What's New?

Miri Liu·Xiayu Zhao·Encheng Xie·ChengXiang Zhai

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A major challenge facing AI scientific discovery pipelines is how to determine when a generated idea is meaningfully novel. Ideally, novelty checks in these pipelines must be able to reject non-novel ideas while not rejecting too many novel ideas, and they should also be able to distinguish which parts of a proposal are non-novel, as opposed to opaquely discarding entire proposals. We design an analytical framework for evaluation of novelty checks with temporal ground truth at both the proposal- and claim-level, using four datasets of 1,060 proposals built from published papers, reviewer disputes, and generated ideas matching ones the field went on to publish. Auditing existing novelty checks with this framework, we find that checks with high rejection rates on non-novel work also tend to have high false alarms on ideas that are later realized by human researchers, and observe that checks built to evaluate proposals as a whole can point to claim-level prior art only by rejecting the whole proposal. We therefore introduce ClaimNov, a fine-grained, interpretable claim-level novelty module. ClaimNov catches 97% of disguised papers at a 1.5% false-alarm rate, and its claim-level novelty profile cuts the LLM judge's false alarms from 11.8% to 1.5%. Because its verdict rests on claim-level evidence, ClaimNov also keeps proposals that build on established contributions, rejecting only 3% of ICLR-accepted proposals with a reviewer-disputed contribution and keeping 91 of 100 novel proposals with one spliced prior contribution, against 76 for the strongest existing check. Code and data are available at https://github.com/emmatliu/claimnov.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Miri Liu, Xiayu Zhao, Encheng Xie, ChengXiang Zhai. 2026-10-27. Do AI Scientists Know What's New?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36511

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Counting Clues: A Lightweight Probabilistic Baseline Can Match an LLM

Large language models (LLMs) excel on multiple-choice clinical diagnosis benchmarks, yet it is unclear how much of this performance reflects underlying probabilistic reasoning. We study this through questions from MedQA that ask for the most likely diagnosis. We introduce Frequency-Based Probabilistic Ranker (FBPR), a lightweight method that scores options with a smoothed Naive Bayes over concept-diagnosis co-occurrence statistics from a large corpus. When co-occurrence statistics are sourced from Dolma, the pretraining corpus for OLMo, and RedPajama, an open reproduction of the LLaMA pretraining-data recipe, FBPR achieves comparable performance to the corresponding LLMs. Furthermore, direct LLM inference and FBPR exhibit complementary strengths, correctly answering largely different subsets of questions with overlap barely above chance. Combining them with a simple hybrid method yields a notable gain over either method alone. These findings show that explicit probabilistic baselines can account for a substantial portion of the benchmark performance on diagnosis questions, while serving as historically grounded reference points and complementary signals for hybridization.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

TextCloak: Safeguarding Data from Unauthorized LLM Fine-Tuning via RL-Driven Unlearnable Examples

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to significant advances across a wide range of language tasks, while simultaneously raising growing concerns about unauthorized online data exploitation and privacy leakage. Unlearnable examples (UEs) emerge as a promising defense by injecting crafted perturbations into data such that models trained on them exhibit degraded utility. However, existing methods for text protection are primarily designed for classification tasks and discriminative language models, which limits their broad applicability (e.g., instruction following or reasoning) in LLMs. In this work, we propose **TextCloak**, an RL-driven data synthesis framework that safeguards textual data against unauthorized LLM fine-tuning. TextCloak employs a *UE generative policy* that transforms clean text into unlearnable examples while preserving semantic fidelity and linguistic naturalness. To optimize the policy, we introduce **GRPO-UE**, which simulates the attacker's LLM fine-tuning and rewards downstream degradation via group-relative policy optimization. This overall formulates a bi-level optimization loop, allowing the generator to discover effective protective patterns. Comprehensive experiments on six publicly available datasets and nine state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that TextCloak consistently impairs unauthorized LLM fine-tuning while maintaining text utility for legitimate use. Further analyses confirm its transferability and robustness across model architectures, training configurations, and adaptive attacks, highlighting its broad applicability as a practical defense for online content.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ReMCTS: Reflection-Enhanced Monte Carlo Tree Search for Code Generation

Open-weight large language models (LLMs) can generate function-level programs from natural-language prompts, but plausible candidates still fail on hidden semantics and repeat mistakes across repair attempts. We present ReMCTS, an execution-grounded, memory-augmented, LLM-guided MCTS-style search framework. It organizes program candidates as tree states, retains branch-local debugging context, retrieves failure experience across branches, and distinguishes failed checks from unavailable evidence. On HumanEval and MBPP-Sanitized, visible-test ReMCTS improves over direct generation in 8 of 10 model-dataset pairs under held-out evaluation, whereas proxy-only search is less stable. Controlled tree-search, sampling, repair, and memory ablations characterize the source and limits of these gains. A 30-task HumanEval-X C++ pilot further demonstrates compatibility with compiler-backed execution, but does not constitute a broad multilingual evaluation.

cs.CL↗