Keyan Ding
Publications
InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem
The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.
Evaluating Reward Model Generalization via Pairwise Maximum Discrepancy Competitions
Reward models (RMs) are central to aligning large language models, yet their practical effectiveness hinges on generalization to unseen prompts and shifting distributions. Most existing RM evaluations rely on static, pre-annotated preference datasets, which provide limited coverage and often fail to faithfully assess generalization in open-world settings. We introduce Pairwise Maximum Discrepancy Competition (PMDC), a dynamic and annotation-efficient framework for evaluating RM generalization using a large, unlabeled, open-domain prompt pool. PMDC actively selects prompt--response pairs that maximize disagreement between two RMs, yielding a compact set of highly contentious test cases. These cases are adjudicated by an oracle, and the resulting outcomes are aggregated via a Bradley--Terry model to produce a global ranking and pairwise win-rate landscape of RMs. We apply PMDC to re-evaluate 10 representative RMs and observe substantial rank reshuffling compared with conventional benchmarks. Qualitative analyses further uncover systematic generalization failures, providing valuable insights for improving reward modeling.