ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pace of scientific research, vital for improving human life, is complex, slow, and needs specialized expertise. Meanwhile, novel, impactful research often stems from both a deep understanding of prior work, and a cross-pollination of ideas across domains and fields. To enhance the productivity of researchers, we propose ResearchAgent, which leverages the encyclopedic knowledge and linguistic reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist them in their work. This system automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them based on the feedback from collaborative LLM-powered reviewing agents. Specifically, starting with a core scientific paper, ResearchAgent is augmented not only with relevant publications by connecting information over an academic graph but also entities retrieved from a knowledge store derived from shared underlying concepts mined across numerous papers. Then, mimicking a scientific approach to improving ideas with peer discussions, we leverage multiple LLM-based ReviewingAgents that provide reviews and feedback via iterative revision processes. These reviewing agents are instantiated with human preference-aligned LLMs whose criteria for evaluation are elicited from actual human judgments via LLM prompting. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines, showing its effectiveness in generating novel, clear, and valid ideas based on both human and model-based evaluation results. Our initial foray into AI-mediated scientific research has important implications for the development of future systems aimed at supporting researchers in their ideation and operationalization of novel work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".