The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large Language Models for Scientific Idea Generation: A Creativity-Centered Survey
Abstract
Scientific idea generation is central to discovery, requiring the joint satisfaction of novelty and scientific soundness. Unlike standard reasoning or general creative generation, scientific ideation is inherently open-ended and multi-objective, making its automation particularly challenging. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of coherent and plausible scientific ideas, yet the nature and limits of their creative capabilities remain poorly understood. This survey provides a structured synthesis of methods for LLM-driven scientific ideation, focusing on how different approaches trade off novelty and scientific validity. We organize existing methods into five complementary families: External knowledge augmentation, Prompt-based distributional steering, Inference-time scaling, Multi-agent collaboration, and Parameter-level adaptation. To interpret their contributions, we adopt two complementary creativity frameworks: Boden taxonomy to characterize the expected level of creative novelty, and Rhodes 4Ps framework to analyze the aspects or sources of creativity emphasized by each method. By aligning methodological developments with cognitive creativity frameworks, this survey clarifies the evaluation landscape and identifies key challenges and directions for reliable and systematic LLM-based scientific discovery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03442 · Cited by 2,173
Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate
Liang, T., He, Z., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992 · Cited by 1,062
HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Face
Shen, Y., Song, K., Tan, X., Li, D., Lu, W., & Zhuang, Y. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-1657 · Cited by 475
AIdeation: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Ideation System for Concept Designers
Wang, W.-F., Lu, C.-T., Ponsa i Campanyà, N., Chen, B.-Y., & Chen, M. Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714148 · Cited by 50
Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agents
Piatti, G., Jin, Z., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Schölkopf, B., Sachan, M., & Mihalcea, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16698 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Shahhosseini, F., Marioriyad, A., Momen, A., Baghshah, M. S., Rohban, M. H., & Javanmard, S. H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2511.07448
- References
- 6
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review