arXiv preprint ·
IdeaTaste: Do LLMs Share the Research Taste of Human Researchers?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Research taste, the judgment of what to read, which problems to pursue, and which methods to try, increasingly shapes the work of AI scientists, yet it remains far less understood than their ability to execute research. We introduce IdeaTaste, a benchmark that scores an LLM by how closely the research proposals it writes from a literature snapshot frozen at 2025 match the work the same communities published in 2026. Our experiments span six contemporary language models and four research areas from established to emerging fields, covering more than 90{,}000 proposals in total. LLM agents fall well short of human communities in both the literature they cite and the ideas they state, reaching about 26\% of the human level on citation matching and only 18\% on idea matching. Their populations can cite as diversely as a community and take up its tasks and methods, yet rarely arrive at the concrete approaches and research plans it pursues. Neither richer field context nor larger populations substantially close this gap. In blinded expert review, AI proposals trail the 2026 papers least in presentation and most in expected success, echoing their gap in concrete approaches, and those whose ideas no human paper shares fare worst, suggesting weaker directions rather than overlooked opportunities. These results indicate that the main bottleneck in AI research taste lies less in finding the directions a community works on than in turning them into the concrete approaches it goes on to pursue. We release IdeaTaste as an open, continuously updated leaderboard (https://cxcscmu.github.io/IdeaTaste) that benchmarks contemporary AI proposals against future publication cycles.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
GRIPS: An Empirical Study of Pre-SQL Grounding Information for SQL Generation
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
A Capitulation Direction Emerges With Scale and Is Causally Load-Bearing Where Validation Is Strong: Eight Models, Two Families, and Five Measurement Hazards
Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues
Accessed, never disclosed: Silent access to protected health information by medical artificial intelligence agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.