arXiv subjects

Tom Hope

Publications and source records attributed to Tom Hope.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

RATIO: A Benchmark for Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations in Scientific Literature

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

MUSE: A Full-Text Cross-Domain Knowledge Base of Scientific Problems, Solutions, and Rationales

Scientific papers contain fine-grained records of problem solving: authors mention technical obstacles and methods that were used to address them, often along with reasoning on why those methods were chosen. We introduce MUSE (Mining Underlying Scientific Explanations), a full-text, multi-domain resource of scientific Problem-Solution-Rationale (P-S-R) triplets. We curate 579 expert-annotated full-text paragraphs, with a rich annotation schema covering salient problem, solution, and rationale spans, solves and rationale_of links and conceptual coreference. A modular extraction pipeline scales this annotation to build a high-quality knowledge base of 37K source-grounded P-S-R triplets. We evaluate the extraction components and include a preliminary experiment training a rationale-supervised LLM for scientific problem solving. Interestingly, we find that rationale supervision improves performance on complex, multi-constraint problems but can harm performance on simpler ones.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Consistency-Driven Co-Evolution for Self-Supervised Cross-Representation Learning

As chart images, tabular data, and visualization code play increasingly important roles across diverse domains, cross-representation understanding across these modalities poses fundamental challenges for AI systems: the relationships across representations are inherently \textit{one-to-many}, supervision is ambiguous and costly, and model optimization lacks a principled signal that is both direction-adaptive and representation-generalizable beyond task-specific objectives. We introduce CoCoEvolve to improve consistency across chart, table, and code representations. Instead of treating cross-representation mapping as a one-to-many problem, we define explicit one-to-one correspondences and optimize models using agreement between representations, without additional annotations. During training, CoCoEvolve@Train performs co-evolution across the chart-table-code cycle, while CoCoEvolve@Test applies the same consistency objective at inference time for test-time co-optimization. We also present CoCoEvolve@Eval, an evaluation suite covering all six cross-representation tasks. Across four benchmarks, CoCoEvolve improves performance in both training-time and test-time settings. Our project page: https://xhguo7.github.io/CoCoEvolve/.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

WikiSTAR: A System for Shedding Light on the Hidden History of Scientific Wikipedia Articles

Wikipedia plays a key role in shaping public understanding of science, and its openly accessible revision history is a unique record of how scientific knowledge evolves over time. Yet scientifically meaningful revisions are obscured by the sheer volume of routine edits, leaving each article's scientific history hidden. We present WikiSTAR (Scientific Tracking of Article Revisions), an interactive system for exploring scientifically meaningful changes across an article's revision history. Using an LLM classifier with an expert-designed multi-label taxonomy, WikiSTAR first tags edit types such as the addition of technical terms, new research findings, and changes in scientific narrative. Then, through interactive views, an article's full revision history can be traced at any granularity - from aggregate trends that reveal when and in which sections scientific content was added or refined, down to individual edits - showing how scientific knowledge develops at a scale previously impossible. In a user study, experts from three domains found that WikiSTAR surfaced new patterns and research questions and enabled previously impractical analyses. We release our system, code and a human-annotated benchmark.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Iterate Until Retrieved: Factual Nugget Optimization for Discoverable Continual Corrections in Agentic RAG

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems in complex B2B (business-to-business) settings may often receive free-form response feedback. Rather than generic feedback signals such as style, preference, or overall response quality, we focus on actionable factual corrections. We identify these instances and convert them into compact knowledge-base entries, which we call factual nuggets. We introduce Iterative Nugget Optimization (INO), an index-time optimization method that uses the production agentic RAG as a test harness: it creates an initial nugget, probes it with the triggering query and paraphrases, reflects over failed retrieval and answer traces, and revises the nugget until it is discoverable. We evaluate INO with two production B2B knowledge-assistance agents across multiple companies that use our system: a product support agent that answers questions over company-specific knowledge bases, and a support ticket agent that assists support engineers. INO consistently improves results over baselines in terms of discoverability and usage of factual corrections, in automated and human evaluations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

PreScience: A Dataset and Benchmark for Scientific Forecasting

Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow? We introduce PreScience, a dataset and benchmark for scientific forecasting built around 98K recent AI research papers, together with companion papers covering author publication histories and citation links, yielding 502K papers in total. The resulting paper records include titles, abstracts, disambiguated author identities, influential references, topic labels, citation trajectories, and metadata snapshotted to respect temporal cutoffs. We instantiate seven exemplar tasks: five paper-anchored tasks -- contribution generation, collaborator prediction, prior work selection, citation count prediction, and future combination prediction -- and two aggregate topic trend forecasting variants. We develop baselines ranging from simple heuristics and embedding methods to frontier language models and agentic systems, and introduce LACER, an LLM-based metric for evaluating similarity of generated contribution descriptions that agrees better with human judgments than existing metrics. Finally, we compose task models to generate a 12-month synthetic corpus and find that the resulting papers are systematically less diverse and less novel than human-authored research from the same period. We release the PreScience dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/prescience) and code (https://github.com/allenai/prescience).

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Anagent For Enhancing Scientific Table & Figure Analysis

In scientific research, analysis requires accurately interpreting complex multimodal knowledge, integrating evidence from different sources, and drawing inferences grounded in domain-specific knowledge. However, current artificial intelligence (AI) systems struggle to consistently demonstrate such capabilities. The complexity and variability of scientific tables and figures, combined with heterogeneous structures and long-context requirements, pose fundamental obstacles to scientific table \& figure analysis. To quantify these challenges, we introduce AnaBench, a large-scale benchmark featuring $63,178$ instances from nine scientific domains, systematically categorized along seven complexity dimensions. To tackle these challenges, we propose Anagent, a multi-agent framework for enhanced scientific table \& figure analysis through four specialized agents: Planner decomposes tasks into actionable subtasks, Expert retrieves task-specific information through targeted tool execution, Solver synthesizes information to generate coherent analysis, and Critic performs iterative refinement through five-dimensional quality assessment. We further develop modular training strategies that leverage supervised finetuning and specialized reinforcement learning to optimize individual capabilities while maintaining effective collaboration. Comprehensive evaluation across 9 broad domains with 170 subdomains demonstrates that Anagent achieves substantial improvements, up to $\uparrow 13.43\%$ in training-free settings and $\uparrow 42.12\%$ with finetuning, while revealing that task-oriented reasoning and context-aware problem-solving are essential for high-quality scientific table \& figure analysis. Our project page: https://xhguo7.github.io/Anagent/.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ABCD-LINK: Annotation Bootstrapping for Cross-Document Fine-Grained Links

Understanding fine-grained links between documents is crucial for many applications, yet progress is limited by the lack of efficient methods for data curation. To address this limitation, we introduce a domain-agnostic framework for bootstrapping sentence-level cross-document links from scratch. Our approach (1) generates and validates semi-synthetic datasets of linked documents, (2) uses these datasets to benchmark and shortlist the best-performing linking approaches, and (3) applies the shortlisted methods in large-scale human-in-the-loop annotation of natural text pairs. We apply the framework in two distinct domains -- peer review and news -- and show that combining retrieval models with LLMs achieves a 73% human approval rate for suggested links, more than doubling the acceptance of strong retrievers alone. Our framework allows users to produce novel datasets that enable systematic study of cross-document understanding, supporting downstream tasks such as media framing analysis and peer review assessment. All code, data, and annotation protocols are released to facilitate future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

LVLM-Aware Multimodal Retrieval for RAG-Based Medical Diagnosis with General-Purpose Models

Retrieving visual and textual information from medical literature and hospital records can enhance diagnostic accuracy for clinical image interpretation. However, multimodal retrieval-augmented diagnosis is highly challenging. We explore a lightweight mechanism for enhancing diagnostic performance of retrieval-augmented LVLMs. We train a lightweight LVLM-aware multimodal retriever, such that the retriever learns to return images and texts that guide the LVLM toward correct predictions. In our low-resource setting, we perform only lightweight fine-tuning with small amounts of data, and use only general-purpose backbone models, achieving competitive results in clinical classification and VQA tasks compared to medically pre-trained models with extensive training. In a novel analysis, we highlight a previously unexplored class of errors that we term inconsistent retrieval predictions: cases where different top-retrieved images yield different predictions for the same target. We find that these cases are challenging for all models, even for non-retrieval models, and that our retrieval optimization mechanism significantly improves these cases over standard RAG. However, our analysis also sheds light on gaps in the ability of LVLMs to utilize retrieved information for clinical predictions. Code and models available at: https://github.com/Nirmaz/CLARE.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback

Novelty assessment is a central yet understudied aspect of peer review, particularly in high volume fields like NLP where reviewer capacity is increasingly strained. We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages: content extraction from submissions, retrieval and synthesis of related work, and structured comparison for evidence based assessment. Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews and captures key patterns such as independent claim verification and contextual reasoning. Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions with human annotated reviewer novelty assessments, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions - substantially outperforming existing LLM based baselines. The method produces detailed, literature aware analyses and improves consistency over ad hoc reviewer judgments. These results highlight the potential for structured LLM assisted approaches to support more rigorous and transparent peer review without displacing human expertise. Data and code are made available.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Literature-Grounded Novelty Assessment of Scientific Ideas

Automated scientific idea generation systems have made remarkable progress, yet the automatic evaluation of idea novelty remains a critical and underexplored challenge. Manual evaluation of novelty through literature review is labor-intensive, prone to error due to subjectivity, and impractical at scale. To address these issues, we propose the Idea Novelty Checker, an LLM-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework that leverages a two-stage retrieve-then-rerank approach. The Idea Novelty Checker first collects a broad set of relevant papers using keyword and snippet-based retrieval, then refines this collection through embedding-based filtering followed by facet-based LLM re-ranking. It incorporates expert-labeled examples to guide the system in comparing papers for novelty evaluation and in generating literature-grounded reasoning. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that our novelty checker achieves approximately 13% higher agreement than existing approaches. Ablation studies further showcases the importance of the facet-based re-ranker in identifying the most relevant literature for novelty evaluation.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Debatable Intelligence: Benchmarking LLM Judges via Debate Speech Evaluation

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the coherence and organization of the speech, the appropriateness of its style and tone, and so on. This task involves a unique set of cognitive abilities that previously received limited attention in systematic LLM benchmarking. To explore such skills, we leverage a dataset of over 600 meticulously annotated debate speeches and present the first in-depth analysis of how state-of-the-art LLMs compare to human judges on this task. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: while larger models can approximate individual human judgments in some respects, they differ substantially in their overall judgment behavior. We also investigate the ability of frontier LLMs to generate persuasive, opinionated speeches, showing that models may perform at a human level on this task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

CHIMERA: A Knowledge Base of Scientific Idea Recombinations for Research Analysis and Ideation

A hallmark of human innovation is recombination -- the creation of novel ideas by integrating elements from existing concepts and mechanisms. In this work, we introduce CHIMERA, the first large-scale Knowledge Base (KB) of recombination examples automatically mined from the scientific literature. CHIMERA enables empirical analysis of how scientists recombine concepts and draw inspiration from different areas, and enables training models that propose cross-disciplinary research directions. To construct this KB, we define a new information extraction task: identifying recombination instances in papers. We curate an expert-annotated dataset and use it to fine-tune an LLM-based extraction model, which we apply to a broad corpus of AI papers. We also demonstrate generalization to a biological domain. We showcase the utility of CHIMERA through two applications. First, we analyze patterns of recombination across AI subfields. Second, we train a scientific hypothesis generation model using the KB, showing that it can propose directions that researchers rate as inspiring.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

In-depth Research Impact Summarization through Fine-Grained Temporal Citation Analysis

Understanding the impact of scientific publications is crucial for identifying breakthroughs and guiding future research. Traditional metrics based on citation counts often miss the nuanced ways a paper contributes to its field. In this work, we propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries that capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents. We introduce an evaluation framework tailored to this task, showing moderate to strong human correlation on subjective metrics such as insightfulness. Expert feedback from professors reveals a strong interest in these summaries and suggests future improvements. Data and code are made available.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

CodeScientist: End-to-End Semi-Automated Scientific Discovery with Code-based Experimentation

Despite the surge of interest in autonomous scientific discovery (ASD) of software artifacts (e.g., improved ML algorithms), current ASD systems face two key limitations: (1) they largely explore variants of existing codebases or similarly constrained design spaces, and (2) they produce large volumes of research artifacts (such as automatically generated papers and code) that are typically evaluated using conference-style paper review with limited evaluation of code. In this work we introduce CodeScientist, a novel ASD system that frames ideation and experiment construction as a form of genetic search jointly over combinations of research articles and codeblocks defining common actions in a domain (like prompting a language model). We use this paradigm to conduct hundreds of automated experiments on machine-generated ideas broadly in the domain of agents and virtual environments, with the system returning 19 discoveries, 6 of which were judged as being both at least minimally sound and incrementally novel after a multi-faceted evaluation beyond that typically conducted in prior work, including external (conference-style) review, code review, and replication attempts. Moreover, the discoveries span new tasks, agents, metrics, and data, suggesting a qualitative shift from benchmark optimization to broader discoveries.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

How do Humans and Language Models Reason About Creativity? A Comparative Analysis

Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how including example solutions with ratings impact creativity evaluation, using a finegrained annotation protocol where raters were tasked with explaining their originality scores and rating for the facets of remoteness (whether the response is "far" from everyday ideas), uncommonness (whether the response is rare), and cleverness. In Study 1, we analyzed creativity ratings from 72 experts with formal science or engineering training, comparing those who received example solutions with ratings (example) to those who did not (no example). Computational text analysis revealed that, compared to experts with examples, no-example experts used more comparative language (e.g., "better/worse") and emphasized solution uncommonness, suggesting they may have relied more on memory retrieval for comparisons. In Study 2, parallel analyses with state-of-the-art LLMs revealed that models prioritized uncommonness and remoteness of ideas when rating originality, suggesting an evaluative process rooted around the semantic similarity of ideas. In the example condition, while LLM accuracy in predicting the true originality scores improved, the correlations of remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness with originality also increased substantially -- to upwards of $0.99$ -- suggesting a homogenization in the LLMs evaluation of the individual facets. These findings highlight important implications for how humans and AI reason about creativity and suggest diverging preferences for what different populations prioritize when rating.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedback

Research ideation involves broad exploring and deep refining ideas. Both require deep engagement with literature. Existing tools focus primarily on idea broad generation, yet offer little support for iterative specification, refinement, and evaluation needed to further develop initial ideas. To bridge this gap, we introduce IdeaSynth, a research idea development system that uses LLMs to provide literature-grounded feedback for articulating research problems, solutions, evaluations, and contributions. IdeaSynth represents these idea facets as nodes on a canvas, and allow researchers to iteratively refine them by creating and exploring variations and composing them. Our lab study (N=20) showed that participants, while using IdeaSynth, explored more alternative ideas and expanded initial ideas with more details compared to a strong LLM-based baseline. Our deployment study (N=7) demonstrated that participants effectively used IdeaSynth for real-world research projects at various ideation stages from developing initial ideas to revising framings of mature manuscripts, highlighting the possibilities to adopt IdeaSynth in researcher's workflows.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Human-LLM Compound System for Scientific Ideation through Facet Recombination and Novelty Evaluation

The scientific ideation process often involves blending facets of existing papers to create new ideas. We contribute Scideator, the first human-LLM system for facet-based scientific ideation. Starting from user-provided papers, Scideator extracts key facets -- purposes, mechanisms, and evaluations -- from these and related papers, allowing users to interactively recombine facets to synthesize ideas. Scideator is driven by three design choices: (1) human-in-the-loop facet recombination, in which users select facets from retrieved papers and the system generates ideas by finding analogies across them via the Faceted Idea Generator module; (2) distance-controlled retrieval via the Analogous Paper Facet Finder module, which surfaces papers ranging from the same topic to entirely different areas to provide a spectrum of directions; and (3) facet-based novelty verification via the Idea Novelty Checker module, a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline that helps users to evaluate idea originality using facets. In a user study with computer science researchers, Scideator provided significantly more creativity support than a baseline using the same backbone LLM without our facet-based modules, particularly in idea exploration and expressiveness. Ablations further show that the facets benefit the novelty checker: facet-based retrieve-then-rerank surfaces more relevant papers than standard retrieval and re-ranking, and a facet-grounded novelty classifier outperforms classifiers that reason over unstructured ideas and papers.

cs.HC↗