arXiv subjects

Yuanyi Zhen

Publications and source records attributed to Yuanyi Zhen.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Ideation Arena: Evaluating LLM Generated Research Ideas with Battle-style Human Expert Assessment

Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard of proposal-stage expert preferences in computer science under a shared closed-context protocol. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they still cannot reliably reproduce expert preferences, with the best judge reaching 72.56% Soft Accuracy on Overall Quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://github.com/foss12138/Research-Ideation-Arena.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform

Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

OmniScientist: Toward a Co-evolving Ecosystem of Human and AI Scientists

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), AI agents have demonstrated increasing proficiency in scientific tasks, ranging from hypothesis generation and experimental design to manuscript writing. Such agent systems are commonly referred to as "AI Scientists." However, existing AI Scientists predominantly formulate scientific discovery as a standalone search or optimization problem, overlooking the fact that scientific research is inherently a social and collaborative endeavor. Real-world science relies on a complex scientific infrastructure composed of collaborative mechanisms, contribution attribution, peer review, and structured scientific knowledge networks. Due to the lack of modeling for these critical dimensions, current systems struggle to establish a genuine research ecosystem or interact deeply with the human scientific community. To bridge this gap, we introduce OmniScientist, a framework that explicitly encodes the underlying mechanisms of human research into the AI scientific workflow. OmniScientist not only achieves end-to-end automation across data foundation, literature review, research ideation, experiment automation, scientific writing, and peer review, but also provides comprehensive infrastructural support by simulating the human scientific system, comprising: (1) a structured knowledge system built upon citation networks and conceptual correlations; (2) a collaborative research protocol (OSP), which enables seamless multi-agent collaboration and human researcher participation; and (3) an open evaluation platform (ScienceArena) based on blind pairwise user voting and Elo rankings. This infrastructure empowers agents to not only comprehend and leverage human knowledge systems but also to collaborate and co-evolve, fostering a sustainable and scalable innovation ecosystem.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

MirrorMind: Empowering OmniScientist with the Expert Perspectives and Collective Knowledge of Human Scientists

The emergence of AI Scientists has demonstrated remarkable potential in automating scientific research. However, current approaches largely conceptualize scientific discovery as a solitary optimization or search process, overlooking that knowledge production is inherently a social and historical endeavor. Human scientific insight stems from two distinct yet interconnected sources. First is the individual cognitive trajectory, where a researcher's unique insight is shaped by their evolving research history and stylistic preferences; another is the collective disciplinary memory, where knowledge is sedimented into vast, interconnected networks of citations and concepts. Existing LLMs still struggle to represent these structured, high-fidelity cognitive and social contexts. To bridge this gap, we introduce MirrorMind, a hierarchical cognitive architecture that integrates dual-memory representations within a three-level framework. The Individual Level constructs high-fidelity cognitive models of individual researchers by capturing their episodic, semantic, and persona memories; the Domain Level maps collective knowledge into structured disciplinary concept graphs; and the Interdisciplinary Level that acts as an orthogonal orchestration engine. Crucially, our architecture separates memory storage from agentic execution, enabling AI scientist agents to flexibly access individual memories for unique perspectives or collective structures to reason. We evaluate MirrorMind across four comprehensive tasks, including author-level cognitive simulation, complementary reasoning, cross-disciplinary collaboration promotion, and multi-agent scientific problem solving. The results show that by integrating individual cognitive depth with collective disciplinary breadth, MirrorMind moves beyond simple fact retrieval toward structural, personalized, and insight-generating scientific reasoning.

cs.AI↗