ideation-space-eval
Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas — Shen et al. (2026) (arXiv:2601.08901, 2026)
What this evaluates
Evaluates a framework's ability to decompose scientific papers into orthogonal conceptual dimensions (problem, method, findings) and model transitions between them. It probes fine-grained conceptual similarity retrieval and assesses whether the model's novelty predictions align with expert human judgments.
Datasets
Metrics
Recall@K (primary) — range: [0, 1]
- Fraction of ground-truth relevant papers retrieved within the top-K ranked results.
NDCG@K — range: [0, 1]
- Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank K, measuring the quality of the ranked list.
Hit Rate@K — range: [0, 1]
- Binary indicator: 1 if at least one relevant paper appears in the top-K results, 0 otherwise.
Pearson correlation — range: [-1, 1]
- Linear correlation coefficient between the model's predicted novelty scores and expert-annotated novelty scores.
Spearman correlation — range: [-1, 1]
- Rank-based correlation coefficient measuring the monotonic relationship between predicted and expert novelty scores.
Input / output format
Input: For retrieval: query vectors extracted from paper components (research problem, method approach, key findings) or concatenated title+abstract text. For novelty: decomposed paper components and retrieved prior work used to compute a novelty score.
Output: For retrieval: a ranked list of candidate papers. For novelty: a scalar novelty score.
Scoring recipe
def compute_recall_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):
return len(set(retrieved_top_k) & set(relevant_papers)) / len(relevant_papers)
def compute_ndcg_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):
dcg = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i, p in enumerate(retrieved_top_k) if p in relevant_papers)
idcg = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i in range(min(len(relevant_papers), len(retrieved_top_k))))
return dcg / idcg if idcg > 0 else 0.0
def compute_hit_rate_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):
return 1.0 if any(p in relevant_papers for p in retrieved_top_k) else 0.0
def compute_correlation(predicted_scores, expert_scores):
return pearsonr(predicted_scores, expert_scores)[0]
Common pitfalls
- Table K values are scaled by 3x (displayed 9, 30, 90 correspond to actual K=3, 10, 30).
- Retrieval ground truth is constructed via GPT-5.2 processing references and OpenReview reviews, potentially introducing LLM bias.
- Novelty baselines use varying input configurations (title, abstract, concat), making direct comparison sensitive to input length/format.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
We report Recall@K, NDCG@K, and Hit Rate@K to measure retrieval quality. We measure the correlation between predicted novelty scores and ground-truth expert scores using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients.
Citation
@misc{shen2026navigating,
title={Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas},
author={Shen et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2601.08901}
}
1---2name: ideation-space-eval3description: Evaluates a framework's ability to decompose scientific papers into orthogonal conceptual dimensions (problem, method, findings) and model transitions between them. It probes fine-grained conceptual similarity retrieval and assesses whether the model's novelty predictions align with expert human judgments. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ICLR 2025 Submissions, AI-Researcher, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Recall@K.4---56# ideation-space-eval78> Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas — Shen et al. (2026) (arXiv:2601.08901, 2026)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates a framework's ability to decompose scientific papers into orthogonal conceptual dimensions (problem, method, findings) and model transitions between them. It probes fine-grained conceptual similarity retrieval and assesses whether the model's novelty predictions align with expert human judgments.1314## Datasets1516- **ICLR 2025 Submissions** — total 500; splits: test (466); repo https://github.com/PLUM-Lab/IdeationSpace17- **AI-Researcher** — total 93; splits: test (93)1819## Metrics2021- `Recall@K` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]22 - Fraction of ground-truth relevant papers retrieved within the top-K ranked results.23- `NDCG@K` — range: [0, 1]24 - Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank K, measuring the quality of the ranked list.25- `Hit Rate@K` — range: [0, 1]26 - Binary indicator: 1 if at least one relevant paper appears in the top-K results, 0 otherwise.27- `Pearson correlation` — range: [-1, 1]28 - Linear correlation coefficient between the model's predicted novelty scores and expert-annotated novelty scores.29- `Spearman correlation` — range: [-1, 1]30 - Rank-based correlation coefficient measuring the monotonic relationship between predicted and expert novelty scores.3132## Input / output format3334**Input**: For retrieval: query vectors extracted from paper components (research problem, method approach, key findings) or concatenated title+abstract text. For novelty: decomposed paper components and retrieved prior work used to compute a novelty score.3536**Output**: For retrieval: a ranked list of candidate papers. For novelty: a scalar novelty score.3738## Scoring recipe3940```python41def compute_recall_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):42 return len(set(retrieved_top_k) & set(relevant_papers)) / len(relevant_papers)4344def compute_ndcg_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):45 dcg = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i, p in enumerate(retrieved_top_k) if p in relevant_papers)46 idcg = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i in range(min(len(relevant_papers), len(retrieved_top_k))))47 return dcg / idcg if idcg > 0 else 0.04849def compute_hit_rate_at_k(retrieved_top_k, relevant_papers):50 return 1.0 if any(p in relevant_papers for p in retrieved_top_k) else 0.05152def compute_correlation(predicted_scores, expert_scores):53 return pearsonr(predicted_scores, expert_scores)[0]54```5556## Common pitfalls5758- Table K values are scaled by 3x (displayed 9, 30, 90 correspond to actual K=3, 10, 30).59- Retrieval ground truth is constructed via GPT-5.2 processing references and OpenReview reviews, potentially introducing LLM bias.60- Novelty baselines use varying input configurations (title, abstract, concat), making direct comparison sensitive to input length/format.6162## Evidence (verbatim from paper)6364> We report Recall@K, NDCG@K, and Hit Rate@K to measure retrieval quality. We measure the correlation between predicted novelty scores and ground-truth expert scores using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients.6566## Citation6768```bibtex69@misc{shen2026navigating,70 title={Navigating Ideation Space: Decomposed Conceptual Representations for Positioning Scientific Ideas},71 author={Shen et al. (2026)},72 year={2026},73 note={arXiv:2601.08901}74}75```7677- arXiv: 2601.08901